Forums of the Megaverse®

I had the idea of writing up some uRRG style technical files; I'm not an aerospace or military expert by any means, but they could still be a starting point for discussion. I don't believe anyone's ever written up the Shadowdrone shoulder missiles, so here's my take:


SF GXBD XīngBiāo

Type: Anti-air point defense missile.
Service history: United Earth Spacy, 2047-.
Length: 20 cm.
Diameter: 7 cm.
Wingspan: 20 cm.
Warhead: 2 kg thermite.
Propulsion: Gimbaled solid fuel rocket.
Guidance: Preprogrammed imaging infrared.
Platforms: VF/Q-6X

The XīngBiāo [StarDart] is a mecha self-defense missile intended as a replacement for the RRG Tarantula on Alpha battloids. The Tarantula was basically an anti-ground missile, and was inadequate against high speed attackers. Data from the Second Earth Reclamation Mission showed casualties among spaceborne Alpha battloids when physically attacked by swarms of Invid Scouts. Analysts at Shìjiè Fángwèi, PCC proposed an air defense missile that could hit high-speed incoming targets while still being small enough to be carried in the Alpha's head launchers. Design of the "Improved Light Defense Missile" [GXBD] started in April of 2047. As it happened, analysts on Project Valkyrie's Alpha Team had themselves concluded the Tarantula was inadequate and were considering deleting it from the next manufacturing block. When they learned of the SF missile team's work they agreed to include launchers for it on the next design.
SF poured resources into development of the missile (now named XīngBiāo). The missile's electronics were kept simple by preprogramming its guidance system with the known parameters of the Scout and Trooper mecha gathered during the Sentinels War, Invid weapon manufacturing being thought to be very conservative. This reduced the work needed to integrate the XīngBiāo's and Alpha's electronics, allowing the teams to concentrate on other problems. However, it soon became clear the missile would be much too large for existing launchers. With the new Alpha's design finalization coming up in September, Alpha Team decided the XīngBiāo would not be carried; however, the Project Valkyrie Drone Team offered to include the XīngBiāo in their design if it was finalized immediately: the drone would be missing a head anyway, and the new drone's redesigned intakes spared room for body-shoulder launchers that could accommodate the larger missile.
As mentioned, the XīngBiāo was much larger than the Tarantula, and its practical volume was increased by fixed fins around its midpoint. While the XīngBiāo concept called for folding fins, SF was unable to engineer a functional mechanism as their deadline drew near, and was forced to base its production design on the flight test model. The Drone Team did not consider this a serious problem, as the shoulder launchers were still large enough to carry many missiles.
This compromise made, the XīngBiāo's design was finished, and it was mass-produced and sent to the Shadowdrone teams. SF has announced its intention to continue development on improvements and variants; including improved targeting, a launch rocket for infantry use, and folding fins. However the XīngBiāo's actual combat utility has not been made public knowledge due to increased secrecy following the Haydonite attacks, and so its future is unclear.

RRG/SF/FE Birdhouse Defensive Missile Launcher

During the XīngBiāo's development, SF collaborated with the RRG and Fraternity Electronics on a hardpoint mounted missile launcher for Beta self-defense. It carried multiple XīngBiāos interspersed with on-launcher sensors. They hoped to include on-launcher target programming for the next model XīngBiāo, but this ability could not be finished in time for the 3rd ERM. A handful were built and sent to the Army & Spacy for combat testing.


Game stats:

I'm thinking it would be a Mini-Missile warhead with the speed and range of a Short-Range Missile. Guidance limitations could be simulated by making attacks on mecha other than Scouts and Troopers Shooting Wild.

Problem with your write up is that there is some information on the Shoulder Launchers in the Infopedia writeup (https://robotech.com/roboverse/mecha/ve ... adow-drone):
-"Another stark difference was in the shoulders. These were remodelled, removing the 2x4 missile launchers that were present in all Alpha variants before, and these missiles were relocated to 2x6 flip-up bays on the intake manifolds"
-"64 x 190mm short-range missiles, mounted in single-shot surface launchers spread out along the fuselage."

While we don't know the specifics for why they remodeled them, we do know they fire the same missiles as the forearms and legs of other Alpha fighter family members. I know in the 1E RPG they treated them as the GR-##, separate from the MM-60 (and again both fired SRMs), but if it had made the cut for the 2E RPG it would have been a remodeled MM-60 type system (replacing the shoulder with intake stations).

Hmm, a few thoughts on the missile itself

Thermite is not a great choice for a missile intended to protect against incoming high speed attacker as it's basically a slow burn through. Some kind of directional fragmentation (against light targets like missiles) hyper velocity penetrator (for heavy targets) or proximity fused plasma makes a little more sense.

Mini-missile payload with SRM performance (or even slightly better) makes a lot of sense for the intended role.

In regards to targeting, the Macross Sourcebook has a number of missiles that have bonuses/penalties for target type. I think that's a good model here for you, rather than the overly specific wild against certain specific enemy mecha.

ShadowLogan wrote:Problem with your write up is that there is some information on the Shoulder Launchers in the Infopedia writeup (https://robotech.com/roboverse/mecha/ve ... adow-drone):
-"Another stark difference was in the shoulders. These were remodelled, removing the 2x4 missile launchers that were present in all Alpha variants before, and these missiles were relocated to 2x6 flip-up bays on the intake manifolds"
-"64 x 190mm short-range missiles, mounted in single-shot surface launchers spread out along the fuselage."

While we don't know the specifics for why they remodeled them, we do know they fire the same missiles as the forearms and legs of other Alpha fighter family members. I know in the 1E RPG they treated them as the GR-##, separate from the MM-60 (and again both fired SRMs), but if it had made the cut for the 2E RPG it would have been a remodeled MM-60 type system (replacing the shoulder with intake stations).

The missiles in the Shadowdrone shoulder launchers are visibly different from the usual Alpha "Hammerheads."

Jefffar wrote:Hmm, a few thoughts on the missile itself

Thermite is not a great choice for a missile intended to protect against incoming high speed attacker as it's basically a slow burn through.

That makes sense. Like I said, I'm not an expert on weapons; since I was basing it on the uRRG write-up of the "Tarantula," I gave it the same warhead.

Jefffar wrote:Some kind of directional fragmentation (against light targets like missiles) hyper velocity penetrator (for heavy targets) or proximity fused plasma makes a little more sense.

Whatever the Tarantula warhead was, it was pretty good at killing Invid Troopers. Just in terms of MOSPEADA's art style, I'm guessing they went up in big explosions, which might suggest a simple, but powerful, explosive; although...how we describe how the warhead works would depend on whether the Tarantula was hitting the Invid in the side or in the eye.

Jefffar wrote:In regards to targeting, the Macross Sourcebook has a number of missiles that have bonuses/penalties for target type. I think that's a good model here for you, rather than the overly specific wild against certain specific enemy mecha.

My idea was that the Scout and Trooper were the only mecha it was programmed to track. But bear in mind I don't play, so I can't claim to have any skin in the subject.

Thank you both for the input!

The missiles in the Shadowdrone shoulder launchers are visibly different from the usual Alpha "Hammerheads."

Visibly different I can agree with based on the line art (they aren't actually used in animation), however they are still 190mm diameter missiles not 70mm (7cm). We know one can fit 2 banks of 190mm missiles side by side in those launchers because they essentially are the same width as the arms of the regular Alpha and the upper arms each hold a 2x4 bank.

If those missiles are 70mm you would be able to squeeze in far more than the 2x6 tubes shown. Each 190mm tube could be replaced by x5 (yes 5, more likely 4) 70mm tubes in its place. That's 96 missiles (gain of 88) at the more likely value.

ShadowLogan wrote:

The missiles in the Shadowdrone shoulder launchers are visibly different from the usual Alpha "Hammerheads."

Visibly different I can agree with based on the line art (they aren't actually used in animation), however they are still 190mm diameter missiles not 70mm (7cm). We know one can fit 2 banks of 190mm missiles side by side in those launchers because they essentially are the same width as the arms of the regular Alpha and the upper arms each hold a 2x4 bank.

If those missiles are 70mm you would be able to squeeze in far more than the 2x6 tubes shown. Each 190mm tube could be replaced by x5 (yes 5, more likely 4) 70mm tubes in its place. That's 96 missiles (gain of 88) at the more likely value.

The missiles' central body is (roughly) 70mm, but the total wingspan is (very roughly) 200mm.
Also, clever work on estimating the size of the Shadowdrone's shoulder launchers; I was fooling around with a ruler and a graphics program and math. I got a deep knowledge of the Legioss lineart, but it was not quick.

So, a few more thoughts on this...

ESalter wrote:I had the idea of writing up some uRRG style technical files; [...]

IMO, probably not a great idea to emulate their bad example... that site is the very embodiment of Did-Not-Do-Research misinformation.

ESalter wrote:Warhead: 2 kg thermite.

While thermite can and will burn energetically even in a vacuum, it's a very poor choice for a warhead filler even as an incendiary due to its instability. Its use - mainly in grenades - is confined mostly to materiel demolition charges meant for non-combat or underwater use.

Most warheads used in the animation are armor-piercing blast-fragmentation models.

ESalter wrote:Guidance: Preprogrammed imaging infrared.

The Inbit/Invid don't have any high heat sources, so imaging infrared would probably be fairly useless against them except in space where the background temperature is extremely low.

Fighter-mounted missiles in the MOSPEADA/New Generation animation are using semi-active or active radar guidance... probably active, given that they're treated as fire-and-forget munitions. A number of the Ride Armor/Cyclone missiles appear to be laser guided similarly to the laser aiming system used in their beam weapons.

ESalter wrote:Analysts at Shìjiè Fángwèi, [...]

Canonically, there is no civilian enterprise anymore in Robotech's setting... that seems to have gone out the window at the end of the Macross Saga with the military having taken over all forward model development of military hardware, though per From the Stars the "military scientists" seem to have already had a monopoly on R&D. By the time of the New Generation, civilians followed suit with the human population divided between soldiers (and military dependents) in space and "slaves" on Earth.

ESalter wrote:PCC proposed an air defense missile that could hit high-speed incoming targets while still being small enough to be carried in the Alpha's head launchers. Design of the "Improved Light Defense Missile" [GXBD] started in April of 2047.

Three years AFTER the Third Robotech War ended with the Invid exodus from Earth? That'd be a weird time to start developing anti-Invid weaponry... and weirder still for the Alpha to still be on the drawing board like in this rest of this paragraph.

ESalter wrote:However the XīngBiāo's actual combat utility has not been made public knowledge due to increased secrecy following the Haydonite attacks, and so its future is unclear.

An infrared seeker would be useless against Haydonites, due to the shadow field preventing detection by radar and infrared systems. Only optical seekers seem to work, per RTSC.

ESalter wrote:The missiles' central body is (roughly) 70mm, but the total wingspan is (very roughly) 200mm.

You are assuming the fins don't foldup. They have to because when I move the missile around in MS Paint (with transparency on) it is clear the tubes and surrounding square are actually smaller than the missile w/its fins deployed.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The missiles' central body is (roughly) 70mm, but the total wingspan is (very roughly) 200mm.

You are assuming the fins don't foldup. They have to because when I move the missile around in MS Paint (with transparency on) it is clear the tubes and surrounding square are actually smaller than the missile w/its fins deployed.

Since practically every missile with fins in the series has folding fins that deploy after launch, that seems like an odd assumption to make when you think about it...

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The missiles' central body is (roughly) 70mm, but the total wingspan is (very roughly) 200mm.

You are assuming the fins don't foldup. They have to because when I move the missile around in MS Paint (with transparency on) it is clear the tubes and surrounding square are actually smaller than the missile w/its fins deployed.

The space for the fins is visible in the launch tubes' lineart.

EDIT:
Also, didn't you just say the missiles were 200mm wide?

Seto Kaiba wrote:

ESalter wrote:Guidance: Preprogrammed imaging infrared.

The Inbit/Invid don't have any high heat sources, so imaging infrared would probably be fairly useless against them except in space where the background temperature is extremely low..

Especially after the Regis made them all quit smoking. Too many cig-sneakers were being picked off outside their hives by Resistance snipers with thermal-imaging sights.

Likewise the coal-powered Inorganics used early on by the Regent. Even weakened as they were, Tirolian guerrillas with heat sensors were able to see the Regent's forces coming by the heat plumes.

taalismn wrote:

Seto Kaiba wrote:

ESalter wrote:Guidance: Preprogrammed imaging infrared.

The Inbit/Invid don't have any high heat sources, so imaging infrared would probably be fairly useless against them except in space where the background temperature is extremely low..

Likewise the coal-powered Inorganics used early on by the Regent. Even weakened as they were, Tirolian guerrillas with heat sensors were able to see the Regent's forces coming by the heat plumes.

They didn't have much choice but to switch away from coal once Santa Claus noticed the Regent was purposely landing himself on the naughty list and cut him off completely.

ESalter wrote:The space for the fins is visible in the launch tubes' lineart.

http://www.gearsonline.net/series/mospe ... sUn-06.gif

https://robotech.com/roboverse/mecha/ve ... adow-drone

I don't see how. IMHO when the intakes launchers are open it looks like circular openings are in concave-like segmented cover plates. If you mistake the concave-like lines for fins, you'll notice not all of circular structures have "fins", most have only 1 or even not connected which makes me think they are indentations in the plate instead of fins.

The only images I can think of that suggest otherwise are the ones for the 1E RPG's Shadow Fighter depicting the GR-12's open due to the way the appear to have shaded it.

And yes I do state the missiles are 190mm in diameter.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The space for the fins is visible in the launch tubes' lineart.

http://www.gearsonline.net/series/mospe ... sUn-06.gif

https://robotech.com/roboverse/mecha/ve ... adow-drone

I don't see how. IMHO when the intakes launchers are open it looks like circular openings are in concave-like segmented cover plates. If you mistake the concave-like lines for fins, you'll notice not all of circular structures have "fins", most have only 1 or even not connected which makes me think they are indentations in the plate instead of fins.

I didn't even consider that. Concavity would explain why the details are shifted rightwards; but the art is just so rough I'm not sure.

ShadowLogan wrote:And yes I do state the missiles are 190mm in diameter.

I was confused about the point you were making: first you said the missiles were 190mm, then you seemed to be saying 200mm was too big, so I was confused about your argument.

ESalter wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The space for the fins is visible in the launch tubes' lineart.

http://www.gearsonline.net/series/mospe ... sUn-06.gif

https://robotech.com/roboverse/mecha/ve ... adow-drone

I don't see how. IMHO when the intakes launchers are open it looks like circular openings are in concave-like segmented cover plates. If you mistake the concave-like lines for fins, you'll notice not all of circular structures have "fins", most have only 1 or even not connected which makes me think they are indentations in the plate instead of fins.

I didn't even consider that. Concavity would explain why the details are shifted rightwards; but the art is just so rough I'm not sure.

ShadowLogan wrote:And yes I do state the missiles are 190mm in diameter.

I was confused about the point you were making: first you said the missiles were 190mm, then you seemed to be saying 200mm was too big, so I was confused about your argument.

I am still saying the missile's body diameter is 190mm. I am also saying the circular feature is sized to fit 190mm.

Having the missile with collapsing fins makes more sense than having the fins fixed as you can now fit more missiles into the same volume of space (or even just use a limited volume of space efficiently). I would think they'd also be easier to reload in this state.

taalismn wrote:

Seto Kaiba wrote:

ESalter wrote:Guidance: Preprogrammed imaging infrared.

The Inbit/Invid don't have any high heat sources, so imaging infrared would probably be fairly useless against them except in space where the background temperature is extremely low..

Especially after the Regis made them all quit smoking. Too many cig-sneakers were being picked off outside their hives by Resistance snipers with thermal-imaging sights.

Likewise the coal-powered Inorganics used early on by the Regent. Even weakened as they were, Tirolian guerrillas with heat sensors were able to see the Regent's forces coming by the heat plumes.

Nah, the Regis didn't make them quit smoking, she just only allows smoking in designated areas...

ShadowLogan wrote:Having the missile with collapsing fins makes more sense than having the fins fixed as you can now fit more missiles into the same volume of space (or even just use a limited volume of space efficiently). I would think they'd also be easier to reload in this state.

Of course. That's why I wrote the non-folding fin rigamarole.
There's still the question of why such small missiles require large individual launch cells.

ESalter wrote:There's still the question of why such small missiles require large individual launch cells.

They're really not that large... there's only about 1/2 a missile diameter between missiles.

As to why they're spaced like that, it likely has a lot to do with the design of the launcher itself. Instead of being fixed in position with a movable door/cover, this whole launcher assembly has to rotate 90 degrees to firing position since it's stored warhead-side down against the rest of the airframe. Because the missiles are packed together in multiple rows and columns in close proximity instead of a single row or column, more space between missiles would be very advantageous to avoid accidental collisions or course-distortions due to flying in each other's exhaust during launch (and likely to minimize accidental jostling of the warheads during maneuvers and opening/closing the launcher).

ESalter wrote:

ShadowLogan wrote:Having the missile with collapsing fins makes more sense than having the fins fixed as you can now fit more missiles into the same volume of space (or even just use a limited volume of space efficiently). I would think they'd also be easier to reload in this state.

Of course. That's why I wrote the non-folding fin rigamarole.
There's still the question of why such small missiles require large individual launch cells.

As I said earlier, the circular features appear to be the same diameter as the missile body (190mm diameter per RT.com Infopedia). The Cell itself might not be as large as you think either as we are looking at it up close, but most Alpha (or Beta) missile launcher shots tend to be much farther away obscuring details.

ShadowLogan wrote:As I said earlier, the circular features appear to be the same diameter as the missile body (190mm diameter per RT.com Infopedia). The Cell itself might not be as large as you think either as we are looking at it up close, but most Alpha (or Beta) missile launcher shots tend to be much farther away obscuring details.

I'm sorry, I'm still not quite following what you're saying.

ShadowLogan wrote:As I said earlier, the circular features appear to be the same diameter as the missile body (190mm diameter per RT.com Infopedia).

But weren't you earlier saying the total width of each launch cell was ~190mm each?

ShadowLogan wrote:The Cell itself might not be as large as you think either as we are looking at it up close...

But if the cell is smaller, then the missile inside is smaller still. (And in any case, I took the different scales between and within the lineart into account.)

ShadowLogan wrote:...but most Alpha (or Beta) missile launcher shots tend to be much farther away obscuring details.

Are you referring to visuals in the cartoon itself?

ESalter wrote:But weren't you earlier saying the total width of each launch cell was ~190mm each?a

No. The post you link to reads (emphasis mine) "Visibly different I can agree with based on the line art (they aren't actually used in animation), however they are still 190mm diameter missiles not 70mm (7cm). We know one can fit 2 banks of 190mm missiles side by side in those launchers because they essentially are the same width as the arms of the regular Alpha and the upper arms each hold a 2x4 bank."

190mm is the diameter of the missile's circular body, minus the fins.

For clarity I am defining the launch cell as the rectangular perimeter surrounding the circular feature. The Circular Feature is an unfired missile by all indications.

Does the missile displayed actually fit the launch cell in the line art when the fins are deployed? Using Transparency to move a copy of the missile over, it looks like the missile with fins when deployed is to big to fit in the launch cell (and I tried multiple cells). So either the lineart is wrong somehow OR the missile's fins deploy after launch.

There isn't even a need to reduce the size of the missile either as it can be shown that 190mm diameter missile body (minus fins) will fit, and would roughly correspond to the lineart depiction.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:But weren't you earlier saying the total width of each launch cell was ~190mm each?a

No. The post you link to reads (emphasis mine) "Visibly different I can agree with based on the line art (they aren't actually used in animation), however they are still 190mm diameter missiles not 70mm (7cm). We know one can fit 2 banks of 190mm missiles side by side in those launchers because they essentially are the same width as the arms of the regular Alpha and the upper arms each hold a 2x4 bank."

190mm is the diameter of the missile's circular body, minus the fins.

• The Alpha's arm-shoulder missile bays are the same width as the Shadowdrone's body-shoulder missile bays.
• Therefore, each Shadowdrone missile cell is the same width as an Alpha missile (~200mm).
• But the Shadowdrone launch tubes are noticeably smaller than their cells.
• Therefore, the central cylinder of the Shadowdrone missiles must be less than 200mm.

What am I missing?

ShadowLogan wrote:For clarity I am defining the launch cell as the rectangular perimeter surrounding the circular feature. The Circular Feature is an unfired missile by all indications.

The circular feature has a thickness that regresses into the launch bay. It's an empty launch tube.

ShadowLogan wrote:Does the missile displayed actually fit the launch cell in the line art when the fins are deployed? Using Transparency to move a copy of the missile over, it looks like the missile with fins when deployed is to big to fit in the launch cell (and I tried multiple cells). So either the lineart is wrong somehow OR the missile's fins deploy after launch.

Well, the lineart is definitely rough: the drone's proportions are different from the main lineart. But there's no reason the missile's fins couldn't be collapsed before launch.

Per official stats, the launcher is using 190mm diameter body missiles.

Each intake structure is approx. 1/5 (or 20%) the Width of the Battloid/Guardian Mode (4.84m) or 0.968m. Based on the Size Comparison Chart, the intakes are also ~2m long (using the CVR figure, width also comes out to ~1m). This means you can fit ~5.09x 190mm missiles in the width and by the length you can fit ~10.52x 190mm missiles.

From the lineart, it can be shown that:
-the missile body diameter, that is to say without the fins, is the same as the circular features
-the launcher is not using the entire width (and possibly length)
-the deployed launcher as depicted is ~10 circular features high (some might be shaded out of view)
-the deployed launcher as depicted is ~4 circular features wide, and a little more than ~5 circular features wide for the intake itself

The above results from the lineart matchup pretty closely to calculated measurements using the official stated 190mm diameter missile body (minus the fins) and known size. If the diameter of the missile was 70mm as you claim it would take 2.7x more circular features to get the same results. This means the diameter of the circular features and by extension the missile body diameter is closer to 190mm in size not your claimed 70mm.

The Missile in the lineart would then be: 190mm in diameter with a wingspan of ~475mm, not 70mm diameter with a wingspan of 200mm.

ESalter wrote:The circular feature has a thickness that regresses into the launch bay. It's an empty launch tube.

If you look at the missile you can see it is not flat top but [shallow] domed. We also know the tubes aren't empty, at least if we compare them to gun barrels (Alpha, Shadow Fighter & Drone, EP-37, EP-40) or other missile tube system (GR-97, RL-6) as these are depicted with a filled in ellipse that is lacking from the Pop-Up launchers' circular feature.

ShadowLogan wrote:Per official stats, the launcher is using 190mm diameter body missiles.

Each intake structure is approx. 1/5 (or 20%) the Width of the Battloid/Guardian Mode (4.84m) or 0.968m. Based on the Size Comparison Chart, the intakes are also ~2m long (using the CVR figure, width also comes out to ~1m). This means you can fit ~5.09x 190mm missiles in the width and by the length you can fit ~10.52x 190mm missiles.

From the lineart, it can be shown that:
-the missile body diameter, that is to say without the fins, is the same as the circular features
-the launcher is not using the entire width (and possibly length)
-the deployed launcher as depicted is ~10 circular features high (some might be shaded out of view)
-the deployed launcher as depicted is ~4 circular features wide, and a little more than ~5 circular features wide for the intake itself

The above results from the lineart matchup pretty closely to calculated measurements using the official stated 190mm diameter missile body (minus the fins) and known size. If the diameter of the missile was 70mm as you claim it would take 2.7x more circular features to get the same results. This means the diameter of the circular features and by extension the missile body diameter is closer to 190mm in size not your claimed 70mm.

The Missile in the lineart would then be: 190mm in diameter with a wingspan of ~475mm, not 70mm diameter with a wingspan of 200mm.

So, you've changed your mind about the Shadowdrone's body-shoulder launchers being the same width as the Alpha's arm-shoulder launchers?

As for my own math, I redid my calculations and got the same answer. Then I tried comparing the missiles against the battloids themselves and got much bigger numbers for both types. But there's no question the Shadowdrone missile is much smaller than the Alpha missile if you compare them side by side. Can you really fit five Alpha missiles across a battloid intake?
As for your own calculations, your logic seems fine; I suspect the problem is that all your approximations just added up. For example, the Shadowdrone missile bays are less than a fifth the battloid's width.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The circular feature has a thickness that regresses into the launch bay. It's an empty launch tube.

If you look at the missile you can see it is not flat top but [shallow] domed. We also know the tubes aren't empty, at least if we compare them to gun barrels (Alpha, Shadow Fighter & Drone, EP-37, EP-40) or other missile tube system (GR-97, RL-6) as these are depicted with a filled in ellipse that is lacking from the Pop-Up launchers' circular feature.

• A dome has two different arcs: one for the dome and one for the base. The circular features are simple circles.
• The circular features have a separate inner arc along the upper left: this represents the depth of the opening.
• The use of shading in other lineart is irrelevant.

ESalter wrote:So, you've changed your mind about the Shadowdrone's body-shoulder launchers being the same width as the Alpha's arm-shoulder launchers?a

No. In Fighter Mode the upper arm launchers are the same width as the intakes. Nor does the Alpha upper arm launcher completely use the full available (f-mode) width, which isn't any different than the Intake launchers in principle (they might use differing amounts).

An eye-ball estimation of the width in Battloid/Guardian mode (which would use the height of the upper arm launchers in F-mode, not the width) is 1/5th.

ESalter wrote:Can you really fit five Alpha missiles across a battloid intake?

We know it is large enough for four 190mm Alpha missiles because of the (inner) lower leg launchers. Those launchers though are also angled from a forward view point (this assumes the launcher doesn't internally reposition itself for fighter mode launches to fire straight ahead) and the missiles aren't packed in as tight as can be.

The Legoiss Model/Toy kits include under intake launchers, IF the uRRG is correct that they have a diameter of 260mm you can fit three of that sized missile with room to spare (the size works, but depending on which toy/model you look at with them the amount of space varies), it would equate to enough space for 4.1x standard 190mm diameter missiles, plus you'd have room to spare. Obviously this assumes the uRRG is correct in the size of the missile, I haven't been able to turn up anything in a quick search. Based on (what I assume is OSM lineart in the Alpha page at the URRG, unused image page specifically) a 3-view profile image in F-mode I estimate a 0.945m width (not far off from an eyeballing of 1/5th approximation giving 0.968m) for the Intake allowing for 4.97x missiles with diameter of 190mm.

The slight difference in results could be explained by the use of the Isometric/3-d perspective of the Shadow Drone Launcher image which has a distorted viewing angle and reducing the intake to a more basic shape to get the overall width. Practically speaking though you're only going to get 4x 190mm diameter missiles, though theoretically you could "fit" 5x by packing them in and not being concerned with a missile(s) bulging out due to the actual shape.a

ESalter wrote: Then I tried comparing the missiles against the battloids themselves and got much bigger numbers for both types. But there's no question the Shadowdrone missile is much smaller than the Alpha missile if you compare them side by side

I don't get the same results as you. There is no question that there are different types of 190mm diameter missiles available in setting based on the lineart.

ESalter wrote:The circular features have a separate inner arc along the upper left: this represents the depth of the opening.

No, this is what shows that it is not an opening. The dome arc on the launched missile IS pretty shallow. We have several examples from other lineart that show how a tubular recessed feature would have been drawn and that is not what is in the image for the circular spots.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote: Then I tried comparing the missiles against the battloids themselves and got much bigger numbers for both types. But there's no question the Shadowdrone missile is much smaller than the Alpha missile if you compare them side by side

I don't get the same results as you. There is no question that there are different types of 190mm diameter missiles available in setting based on the lineart.

Scale the Shadowdrone's head to the Alpha missile diagram then compare the Shadowdrone's missile to the ones in the Alpha's leg bays; the size difference is unmistakeable.
As for the uRRG measurements, I suspect they're too low. Right now, I'm more concerned with their relative size.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:The circular features have a separate inner arc along the upper left: this represents the depth of the opening.

No, this is what shows that it is not an opening. The dome arc on the launched missile IS pretty shallow. We have several examples from other lineart that show how a tubular recessed feature would have been drawn and that is not what is in the image for the circular spots.

An outline of a dome has two different arcs: a deep one for the dome and a shallow one for the base. What we see in the picture are simple circles.

ESalter wrote:Scale the Shadowdrone's head to the Alpha missile diagram then compare the Shadowdrone's missile to the ones in the Alpha's leg bays; the size difference is unmistakeable.
As for the uRRG measurements, I suspect they're too low. Right now, I'm more concerned with their relative size.

I re-scaled a full Shadow Drone Battloid to an Alpha-H Battloid, matching the intake cover size and used Transparency to overlay them, the Leg Bays on both mecha are the same size. I had to re-scale one of the images because they don't appear to have been drawn at the same size. Even inserting the image (set w/transparency) of the Intake's Pop-up deployed and scaling I end up with the leg launchers being the same size as the pop-up.

ESalter wrote:An outline of a dome has two different arcs: a deep one for the dome and a shallow one for the base. What we see in the picture are simple circles.

Circles overlap such that one is just an arc for all practical purposes, so it is a dome.

The missiles are all the same size going by the line art.

ShadowLogan wrote:I re-scaled a full Shadow Drone Battloid to an Alpha-H Battloid, matching the intake cover size and used Transparency to overlay them, the Leg Bays on both mecha are the same size.

I wouldn't try to compare details like intakes and missile bays; the details were deliberately changed, and I think the Dark Legioss may be drawn somewhat roughly (there are differences in the proportions between the soldier and missile drawings). It's better to compare heights.

ShadowLogan wrote:I had to re-scale one of the images because they don't appear to have been drawn at the same size.

Yes, you have to scale down the drone launcher image.

ShadowLogan wrote:Even inserting the image (set w/transparency) of the Intake's Pop-up deployed and scaling I end up with the leg launchers being the same size as the pop-up.

You mean, the missiles in the manned unit's legs are the same size as the drone's missiles?

I'll go through this in detail:

• Scale the Legioss missile bay detail to the drone soldier image:
  Using eta-24.gif and darkLegiosUn-04.gif from Gears Online, scale the drone down to 430/703.
• Scale the drone missile detail (darkLegiosUn-06.gif) down to the scale of the drone robot; 238/493 is about right.

Now compare missiles; the difference in diameter is unmistakable.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:An outline of a dome has two different arcs: a deep one for the dome and a shallow one for the base. What we see in the picture are simple circles.

Circles overlap such that one is just an arc for all practical purposes, so it is a dome.

You're saying the inner arc is the roof of the dome? I'm not sure you can see the base of a dome behind the roof of a dome; since the outline of a dome curves smoothly from base to top, tilting the dome will change the outline of the far end. I especially don't think you can see the base of the dome behind the roof of a dome when the dome is tilted as severely as it must be if the inner arc is the roof.

ShadowLogan wrote:The missiles are all the same size going by the line art.

I not sure what this has to do with the circular features. Are you referring to your earlier missile comparison?

ESalter wrote:I wouldn't try to compare details like intakes and missile bays; the details were deliberately changed, and I think the Dark Legioss may be drawn somewhat roughly (there are differences in the proportions between the soldier and missile drawings). It's better to compare heights.

I used 3 lineart images: 2 full battloid modes (Alpha, Drone), 1 Drone partial battloid with the pop-up.

They do all match up when you re-scale them. I used the intakes (opening) themselves in the overlays instead of the head because the Drone Head gives the impression the head is semi-recessed even when closed. The Intakes allow other features to line up nicely to.

I used Eta-19, but it still holds up with Eta-24. Now if you try and compare the missile in Eta-24 to the re-scaled drone one it will show up as smaller. The problem is the Eta-24 exposed missile is not in scale to the Alpha (I can only fit 3 in the leg launcher, and one in the upper arm, the missile is draw such that it is shoulder width of the CVR-3 guy which is going to be over 300mm), so you have to re scale the loose missile to be in-scale (which also makes them roughly the same size).

Really the only thing the Drone's pop-up launchers establish is that they use a different type of 190mm diameter body missile, one that deploys fins and has different shaping.

ESalter wrote:You mean, the missiles in the manned unit's legs are the same size as the drone's missiles?

Yes. The closed launch bay on the Alpha's legs, will fit 4 of the pop-up launchers circular features in the closed position (other art shows 4 missiles in that location), and the forearm location fits 5 (matching up with other depictions).

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:I wouldn't try to compare details like intakes and missile bays; the details were deliberately changed, and I think the Dark Legioss may be drawn somewhat roughly (there are differences in the proportions between the soldier and missile drawings). It's better to compare heights.

I used 3 lineart images: 2 full battloid modes (Alpha, Drone), 1 Drone partial battloid with the pop-up.

They do all match up when you re-scale them. I used the intakes (opening) themselves in the overlays instead of the head because the Drone Head gives the impression the head is semi-recessed even when closed. The Intakes allow other features to line up nicely to.

You mean, you used the distance between the two intakes to match pictures? Because the shape of the intakes is very different. For that matter, the space between intakes looks bigger on the drone.
You're better off matching the two pictures' overall size.

ShadowLogan wrote:I used Eta-19, but it still holds up with Eta-24. Now if you try and compare the missile in Eta-24 to the re-scaled drone one it will show up as smaller. The problem is the Eta-24 exposed missile is not in scale to the Alpha (I can only fit 3 in the leg launcher, and one in the upper arm, the missile is draw such that it is shoulder width of the CVR-3 guy which is going to be over 300mm), so you have to re scale the loose missile to be in-scale (which also makes them roughly the same size).

Are you writing about the loose missile floating above the Legioss' head? Yeah, that's definitely out of scale. I haven't mentioned it in two posts; I'm talking about comparing the drone missile to the ones in the leg launchers.

When you scale all the pictures properly, the Shadowdrone missile is smaller than the Alpha missile.

ESalter wrote:You mean, you used the distance between the two intakes to match pictures? Because the shape of the intakes is very different. For that matter, the space between intakes looks bigger on the drone.
You're better off matching the two pictures' overall size.

Overall size comes out fine the way I did it, other features on the units matched up (in terms of full-size vs full size, the drone "bust" obviously will be limited to what was shown).a

ESalter wrote:Are you writing about the loose missile floating above the Legioss' head? Yeah, that's definitely out of scale. I haven't mentioned it in two posts; I'm talking about comparing the drone missile to the ones in the leg launchers.

When you scale all the pictures properly, the Shadowdrone missile is smaller than the Alpha missile.

The loose floating missile yes, that one is out of scale. I used the Bust launcher to compare to the leg slots, and I can get four in when I scale the bust to the corresponding sections on the Alpha, even the forearm slots work out to five.

Using the bust's launched missile would yield the result you state, but only due to the apparent angle differences. When I correct for the angle (rotate 90deg right in MS Paint), the SD-missile body diameter lines up with the Alpha missile.a

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:You mean, you used the distance between the two intakes to match pictures? Because the shape of the intakes is very different. For that matter, the space between intakes looks bigger on the drone.
You're better off matching the two pictures' overall size.

Overall size comes out fine the way I did it, other features on the units matched up (in terms of full-size vs full size, the drone "bust" obviously will be limited to what was shown).

Well, since you're apparently still getting the missile sizes wrong, maybe "[o]verall size" is not "coming out fine"? Again, both the intake sections and the section between them are very different between the two units.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Are you writing about the loose missile floating above the Legioss' head? Yeah, that's definitely out of scale. I haven't mentioned it in two posts; I'm talking about comparing the drone missile to the ones in the leg launchers.

When you scale all the pictures properly, the Shadowdrone missile is smaller than the Alpha missile.

The loose floating missile yes, that one is out of scale. I used the Bust launcher to compare to the leg slots, and I can get four in when I scale the bust to the corresponding sections on the Alpha, even the forearm slots work out to five.

Don't compare the Shadowdrone launchers to the leg launchers; compare the Shadowdrone missile to the (forwardmost) leg missile.
(I'm not even sure how you can use the Shadowdrone launcher to compare missile sizes since there's so much space between missiles.)

ShadowLogan wrote:Using the bust's launched missile would yield the result you state, but only due to the apparent angle differences. When I correct for the angle (rotate 90deg right in MS Paint), the SD-missile body diameter lines up with the Alpha missile.a

A line doesn't change length when you rotate it. Right?



Again, I point to my detailed description of how to compare the three pictures from Gears Online:

• eta-24.gif
• darkLegiosUn-04.gif; 430/703
• darkLegiosUn-06.gif; 238/493

ESalter wrote:Well, since you're apparently still getting the missile sizes wrong, maybe "[o]verall size" is not "coming out fine"? Again, both the intake sections and the section between them are very different between the two units.

The only features on the missile between various lineart shots that I am comparing is the diameter of the missile body. The Fins on the drone can only fit in the pop-up bay if they fold up, so I can ignore that feature. The length can also be ignored since there is nothing to compare it to in the two eta gifs from gearsonline.

ESalter wrote:Don't compare the Shadowdrone launchers to the leg launchers; compare the Shadowdrone missile to the (forwardmost) leg missile.
(I'm not even sure how you can use the Shadowdrone launcher to compare missile sizes since there's so much space between missiles.)

I also did compare missile to missile, they match up or close enough that I put any difference down to the slight difference in perspective between the two lineart shots.

Each launch section on the leg (or forearm) of the Alpha holds 4 (or 5) missiles, you can overlay the pop-up launcher over those bays when closed and get the appropriate number of disks from the launcher to occupy the same space. This works if you have transparency (this allows the stuff below it to be seen).

Given that officially the pop-up launchers on the shadow drone have a diameter of 190mm, which is the same as the other locations on the Alpha (and SD) that hold 190mm missiles, this shouldn't be surprising. The only real difference between the pop-up 190mm missile and base 190mm is the inclusion of fins and a different body shape.

ESalter wrote: A line doesn't change length when you rotate it. Right?

No it doesn't, but if the features being compared aren't orientated properly it is a lot harder to see them at the same size. In this case the missile feature I am looking at isn't orientated similarly to the launcher feature, the two disc areas don't appear to lineup (why should they, one goes off to the left and one to the right), but when I rotate the missile to match the orientation they lineup.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Well, since you're apparently still getting the missile sizes wrong, maybe "[o]verall size" is not "coming out fine"? Again, both the intake sections and the section between them are very different between the two units.

The only features on the missile between various lineart shots that I am comparing is the diameter of the missile body. The Fins on the drone can only fit in the pop-up bay if they fold up, so I can ignore that feature. The length can also be ignored since there is nothing to compare it to in the two eta gifs from gearsonline.

You can't compare missiles until you've scaled the robots launching them.

ShadowLogan wrote:

ESalter wrote:Don't compare the Shadowdrone launchers to the leg launchers; compare the Shadowdrone missile to the (forwardmost) leg missile.
(I'm not even sure how you can use the Shadowdrone launcher to compare missile sizes since there's so much space between missiles.)

I also did compare missile to missile, they match up or close enough that I put any difference down to the slight difference in perspective between the two lineart shots.

Each launch section on the leg (or forearm) of the Alpha holds 4 (or 5) missiles, you can overlay the pop-up launcher over those bays when closed and get the appropriate number of disks from the launcher to occupy the same space. This works if you have transparency (this allows the stuff below it to be seen).

Given that officially the pop-up launchers on the shadow drone have a diameter of 190mm, which is the same as the other locations on the Alpha (and SD) that hold 190mm missiles, this shouldn't be surprising. The only real difference between the pop-up 190mm missile and base 190mm is the inclusion of fins and a different body shape.

You misscaled the mecha: the widest part of the drone missile is notably smaller than the tip of the forwardmost leg missile. For the third time:

• eta-24.gif
• darkLegiosUn-04.gif; 430/703
• darkLegiosUn-06.gif; 238/493

@ESalter
I have scaled them properly. I know this because I have multiple features lining up when I scale them. And I am using the same images as you.

This has turned into a cycle of repeating ourselves. I am done with this.

ShadowLogan wrote:@ESalter
I have scaled them properly. I know this because I have multiple features lining up when I scale them.

The features on the Shadowdrone and the launcher Alpha do not match. Therefore, if "multiple features [line] up," you HAVE NOT "scaled them properly."

ShadowLogan wrote:This has turned into a cycle of repeating ourselves. I am done with this.

• I have given the exact transformations I used to compare pictures multiple times. You have ignored them.
• You claimed to have scaled the images by matching features, but
  • You won't say exactly which features.
  • You ignored that fact that the matching features aren't actually the same size.
  • You won't give numbers for the actual transformations of the pictures themselves.

You're correct: if you ignore everything I write, there is no point in continuing.

Wouldn't it have been simpler to just both uploads your "scaled" version of the picture with one layer in transparency so that we'd all see what you were speaking about?
Maybe with multiple images demonstrating the different steps of the scaling process you both are using?
Otherwise, this really looks like taking shots in the dark.
Somewhere in there, there must be a mistake. We just can't see it.

xunk16 wrote:Otherwise, this really looks like taking shots in the dark.
Somewhere in there, there must be a mistake. We just can't see it.

This is one of those archetypal Robotech fan arguments I told you about a while back.

For some Robotech fans, no amount of evidence is sufficient to convince them their headcanon is incorrect. In this case, ShadowLogan is correct that the official Robotech spec says the missiles are the same diameter (190mm) and same type (SRM). No real help from the OSM side, since the Unmanned Dark Legioss was kind of a "throw it in at the last minute" sort of design so its spec was the same as the regular Dark Legioss.

xunk16 wrote:Wouldn't it have been simpler to just both uploads your "scaled" version of the picture with one layer in transparency so that we'd all see what you were speaking about?
Maybe with multiple images demonstrating the different steps of the scaling process you both are using?
Otherwise, this really looks like taking shots in the dark.
Somewhere in there, there must be a mistake. We just can't see it.

Sure, but... how would I "upload" it? I don't know of any way I can show pictures on this board.
I do think that if we're precise enough in our descriptions it might be possible to come to some conclusions. But I agree the situation is less than ideal.

ESalter wrote:Sure, but... how would I "upload" it? I don't know of any way I can show pictures on this board.
I do think that if we're precise enough in our descriptions it might be possible to come to some conclusions. But I agree the situation is less than ideal.

Well, there are many free image hosting services... imgur is a popular one for this kind of thing.