>the UC in charge of being at peace

>Gundam in charge of being at peace in the first place

>human
>peace

File: Type 61.jpg (424KB, 2000x1419px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 2000x1419px

>>15601615
>those crazy jets
Pretty dumb. the military was pretty realistic in Gundam until Zeon made the Zaku and everyone was like "oh shit that's way cooler"

>>15601653
Are video games, sports events, and violent movies the modern recreation of the Roman Colosseum, where we satisfy our bloodlust?

Do they transform or are they just permanently in "totally not a Zeta in Waverider-mode"?

>>15601728
>UC 0044

>>15601728
Those aren't mobile suits, anon.

>>15601696
it's just the Feddie designs that are practical because they're meant to resemble 20th century military hardware. the Zeon planes/tanks are all retarded as fuck because they're spess people so everything needs to look like a curvy goose

>>15601728
They're just fighter jets with a lot of unnecessary greeblies and stuff sticking out everywhere

>>15601755
>>15601757
But they have feet and defined legs and chest vents and butt flaps and the panel lines match up with where the Zeta transforms.
are they just gonna say that Kamille got the inspiration for the Zeta's design from these?

>>15601757
>>15601755
Another War in U.C. 0044 does have mobile suits.

>>15601803
>MAHQ says it even has an α Azieru
So when exactly is this manga supposed to be set in? Cause it sure as hell ain't UC0044.

What did space faggots do this time?

File: marasai.jpg (796KB, 1236x1600px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 1236x1600px

>>15601833
Kondo really doesn't care about lore

>>15601833
I'm assuming that a lot of the story takes place after 0087, as it features suits that are stated to be developed from the Z Gustav, a Z variant. This doesn't explain the title though! Unfortunately, doesn't look like there is much information at all, as is the usual for 'obscure' Gundam side stories. Kind of odd.

>>15601696
I've explained AMBAC so many times to you obvious cross-boards that I'm done doing it. Look it up if you want to understand how MS make sense in space (UGH DURR MODERN TECHNOLOGY MEANS) UC takes place so far in the future that island three colonies are built. Look those up and then tell me you think technology that could make the MS possible won't exist by then.

>>15601615
These jets aren't that crazy in UC when you consider how the space battleships are explained in 0079 and IGLOO. Those jets became obsolete because things like Radar in UC couldn't see very far at all (especially by the OYW).

Transitioning from those sorts of jets to things like the TIN cod make sense if you can't launch missiles at targets BVR anymore. It would be like Vietnam era jets (which is how most anime operate to begin with).

>>15602607
>Vietnam war era
You mean Korean war? By the time it ain't me started playing there were already guided missiles in use.

>>15602607
As of Origin's 4th (i think) episode it's canon that minovsky reactors weren't invented until the 0070s or something since Minovsky created them to power the first bipedal MS.

>>15602594
>I've explained AMBAC so many times
And it's likewise been explained why AMBAC wouldn't actually work that way.

None of the technologies central to Gundam are realistic.

>>15607242
Prove it

>>15607325
Equal and opposite reactions.

When an astronaut swings his arm, he rotates around his center of mass - but only to a degree that mirrors how much he moves his arm. Since his arm has a limited range of motion, he has a limited range of rotation if he wants to use it for attitude control.

A mobile suit using a humanoid design isn't going to be able to rotate freely just be swinging its arms and legs. And considering those arms and legs are also supposed to be performing other tasks, whatever marginal benefit they might gain from flexing their limbs is counteracted by the fact that they have to do things like redirect their rifles and engines. Adding more limbs doesn't fix the underlying problems.

An AMBAC-like system wouldn't necessarily need to be a humanoid shape - it would just need "limbs" that it could flap to achieve the same effect, and realistically a non-humanoid shape with limbs positioned around different axes would be more effective. It's possible to build AMBAC vehicles today. But we don't - it doesn't give you meaningful attitude control, and it makes most tasks next to impossible. It's quite literally the equivalent of an astronaut just flailing their arms and legs, which we should all know is NOT a good way to control orientation, especially in complex three-dimensional combat maneuvers.

Gundam doesn't extrapolate the consequences of speculative technology. It doesn't make assumptions about technology and then build a setting out of it - it builds a setting (with factors like selling toys), and then makes up technology to justify it. It's not realistic - it's not meant to be.

If you want attitude control that doesn't require reaction mass, look up reaction wheels. They've been around for decades.

File: AMBAC_Supesupoddo_test.jpg (61KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x400px

>>15607367
>Since his arm has a limited range of motion, he has a limited range of rotation if he wants to use it for attitude control.
Because the space suit is stiff and reduces the range of motion of the wearer to a minimum. MS are machines and they can easily do a 360 arm spin at the shoulder or rotate their leg about the z-axis whereas a human might get 10 degrees with discomfort because of how the leg muscles are bound to the hips. It's true Gundam shows don't make the most of it but that's because AMBAC is an idea that came from paper much later, and most kids don't want to see their cool nazi robots spinning their arms and legs.

>A mobile suit using a humanoid design isn't going to be able to rotate freely just be swinging its arms and legs.
It can spin a lot of things freely. The most of the Victory Gundam's wins are contingent on it doing at a minimum 180 spins with its limbs or head among other things.

>And considering those arms and legs are also supposed to be performing other tasks
No... MS spend a lot of time cruising just like any other vehicle, they're not constantly aiming at an enemy. AMBAC is used in conjunction with thrusters, not in lieu or in opposition to them. AMBAC was a concept made up for Gundam in the 90s or early 2000s and it shows because every new MS got thrusters on the feet, legs, and shoulders to assist the idea. In battle there's no reason not to use thrusters for fastest movement. This is a perfect example of a strawman.

>An AMBAC-like system wouldn't necessarily need to be a humanoid shape
Pic related from the 2003 Complete MS works book. MS are humanoid because it's cool but the idea is sound, especially when mechanical limbs aren't bound by human limitations.

>If you want attitude control that doesn't require reaction mass, look up reaction wheels.
Which, like AMBAC would, are useful primarily in making small movements or corrections and improving fuel efficiency.

>>15601615
>UC 0044
What's even the premise of this series?

>>15607367
MS don't need to be humanoid, but they're way easier to pilot even on an intuitive level than irregular or nonhumanoid types that would be dependent on fly by wire style systems to walk. Also, where you you fit multiple reaction wheels large enough to have the same armor and arsenal as a Zaku II for thr same price point?

>>15607445
Since mobile suits mostly work on macros would a non-humanoid AMBAC-based spacecraft really be that much more difficult to pilot
I mean you'd still just be holding your joystick to turn right, right

>>15607451
I think more powerful control systems like in Geass make more sense for humanoid MS

File: AMBACTEST.jpg (142KB, 560x799px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 560x799px

>>15607421
>MS are machines and they can easily do a 360 arm spin at the shoulder or rotate their leg about the z-axis whereas a human might get 10 degrees with discomfort because of how the leg muscles are bound to the hips.

So it can rotate its arms around one axis. How about the others? Its legs certainly don't get full rotation in any direction. Around the waist maybe, but that's not AMBAC, and it's certainly not possible for every mobile suits (neither is pinwheeling their arms - especially mobiles suits with shoulders like the Qubeley).

If a MS wants to reorient its body and swings its limbs to do so, it can't return its limbs to their previous position without also returning its body to its previous orientation. It has to spend reaction mass to do that - unless it has 360 degrees of rotation, like a reaction wheel, at which points you have to wonder why you aren't just building reaction wheels or using things like waist rotation for attitude control rather than maneuvering a limb that's also supposed to be a manipulator AND the vehicle's main weapon.

Limbs aren't very good for moving around in space. This is only ever a point of contention on /m/ - the rest of the world figured this out before Gundam was even a thing.


>This is a perfect example of a strawman.

Where does any source say AMBAC is just for minor attitude control outside of combat? The test vehicle you mention is supposed to have significantly greater agility and fuel efficiency than a competing design which used conventional thrusters JUST by swinging its arms - which you're even willing to admit doesn't make sense.

You both can't and don't need to defend AMBAC. It's just a silly piece of technobabble made to justify robot-man space toys.

>>15607479
>Its legs certainly don't get full rotation in any direction.
As mentioned before they turn at the hip about the z-axis. But why does it need to have full range of motion about every axis? AMBAC is an additional system of control not the only one.

>and it's certainly not possible for every mobile suits (neither is pinwheeling their arms - especially mobiles suits with shoulders like the Qubeley).
Qubeley comes from a school of though that every MS should be laden with thrusters and weapons, i.e. Axis. The Qubeley has thrusters on the in and out of its shoulders so even if it can move it limbs to re-orient itself it doesn't need a full range of motion, though I'm not sure why you think it can't. Its shoulders don't block anything and can spread to redistribution mass. Like I said before AMBAC isn't something that exists in lieu of thrusters.

>If a MS wants to reorient its body and swings its limbs to do so, it can't return its limbs to their previous position without also returning its body to its previous orientation
Except it wouldn't need to return them to their previous position unless it's expressly required. You keep coming up with false conditions to justify your argument but they make no sense.

>maneuvering a limb that's also supposed to be a manipulator AND the vehicle's main weapon.
A weapon that's only used in what is basically a melee? Most of the time we see MS in the later shows like Z, ZZ, CCA they're probably just cruising.

>Where does any source say AMBAC is just for minor attitude control outside of combat?
Where does it say it's only for combat? YOU, not I, are the only one imposing artificial conditions on the use of AMBAC. AMBAC would have the most use while cruising or just moving so why does aiming or dodging come up when MS are laden with thrusters to help them maneuver quickly. Stop your nonsense, it's incredibly intellectually dishonest to impose nonsensical conditions and pretend I was the one to do it.

File: 1495333891807.jpg (639KB, 1920x1080px)

639KB, 1920x1080px

>>15607479
>>15607451
>>15607445
TANKS WITH LEGS! TANKS WITH LEGS! TANKS WITH LEGS!

File: kond mrg8623_o.jpg (370KB, 1109x1699px)

370KB, 1109x1699px

>>15601728
Kondo made it transformable in a different manga. Here it is transformed.

>>15607479
>Where does any source say AMBAC is just for minor attitude control outside of combat? The test vehicle you mention is supposed to have significantly greater agility and fuel efficiency than a competing design which used conventional thrusters JUST by swinging its arms - which you're even willing to admit doesn't make sense.
>You both can't and don't need to defend AMBAC. It's just a silly piece of technobabble made to justify robot-man space toys.

I'm surprised it had greater agility considering the spacepod is based on an earlier proto-MS, though the proto-MS had legs which was why it won the bid. Please translate that page for us.
http://www.mechatalk.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=14688

>The main reason for this was the ZI-XA3's unique humanoid form. Its legs, and the manipulators that corresponded to a human's arms, served as part of the AMBAC (Active Mass Balance AutoControl) system. The adoption of this system enabled the ZI-XA3 to perform attitude control without consuming any propellant, something that would be impossible for traditional space fighters. Compared to the MIP-X1, it was a small machine with a smaller propellant capacity, but due to the use of AMBAC it had roughly twice the operating time of the MIP-X1.

>When it came to close combat in space, the ZI-XA3's results were slightly inferior to those of the MIP-X1. But it displayed high performance during testing at asteroid bases, on the lunar surface, and inside colonies, and the ability to deploy a single weapon on battlefields with such different characteristics earned it a far higher valuation.

>>15607479
Anon, if you put a vernier in an armored limb with multiple joints it saves you on the trouble of having more verniers. This isn't that hard to understand.

>>15601728
>>15601757
>>15601790
>>15601798
What if it's like the Gundam Abulhool... Legs and body but no arms and torso.

>>15601615
Haha they're not even trying to hide it with that name
>YET ANOTHER FUCKING WAR UC.0179

>>15607505
So right now your entire arguments hinges on two things.

1. AMBAC is only meant for minor attitude control. This is patently false, as even other posters like >>15607519 are able to point out with the reason why the ZI-XA3 won the competition against a conventional design. It's something you made up, and you're doing this infantile I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I thing where you keep claiming that I'm the one making things up.

2. Limited range of movement doesn't hinder AMBAC. There's a reason momentum wheels are wheels - it's so that they don't have to reverse their direction (and thus undo any rotation they imparted on the vehicle) to assume a new position. Pointing that out isn't "coming up with conditions" - that's just how physics works. Swing your limb as far as you can in one direction - that's as much rotation as you can get. Need to rotate further? You can't move your arm back (you'll counter-rotate), and you have to spend reaction mass to keep moving. AMBAC is explicitly meant to remove the need to spend reaction mass to maneuver -
not in some super specific circumstance like you keep claiming, which is a condition entirely of your own invention, but in general. But clearly, basic physics doesn't allow for arms and legs to do that.

Do you honestly think mobile suits are just going to sit quietly in space twisting themselves into strange contortions for station keeping? Is that REALLY what you're arguing? Because that's not the point of AMBAC (see above), and it's not some technological revolution (it's an extremely shitty version of momentum wheels).

This discussion's gone on too long, and you're not a particularly good conversation partner.

File: Foto0016e.jpg (45KB, 535x640px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 535x640px

>>15601757
Explain this anon

File: Latch_Bum.jpg (150KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 640x480px

>>15609395

File: pms-007b.jpg (44KB, 321x400px)

44KB, 321x400px

>>15609395
And apparently this was the 6th or 7th in the line of MS by Paptimus

File: SSR-92.jpg (153KB, 1229x1933px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1229x1933px

>>15609398

>>15607451
>macros
I have am aneurysm every time you retards say this. MS work on inverse kinematics, like ALL robots, NOT macros.

>>15607451
I really don't believe reaction wheels can be a better solution to attitude control than AMBAC unless you're going to make something very expensive. You would be forced to build armor around them and then it would be more like a gyroscope, right? It doesn't seem practical for light weapons.

>>15608754
>1. AMBAC is only meant for minor attitude control. This is patently false, as even other posters like >>15607519 (You) are able to point out with the reason why the ZI-XA3 won the competition against a conventional design. It's something you made up, and you're doing this infantile I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I thing where you keep claiming that I'm the one making things up.
That's me pointing out that you're full of shit by claiming the AMBAC prototype had superior agility when it didn't. The profile says it was worse. MS are still laden with thrusters specifically meant to control attitude and it's clear that AMBAC is meant for minor control because they wouldn't have designed conventional means of controlling attitude. Even the prototype spacepod very obviously has thrusters on the rear and arms. Yes, in fact you're the only one making up false conditions for AMBAC's use when MS are still reliant first and foremost on thrusters. AMBAC exists purely as a frivolity since operational time has never been an issue in the shows and that's the only advantage it has even on paper. But the principle is still sound.

>Limited range of movement doesn't hinder AMBAC.
Except it does. Momentum is a vector. Being unable to move mass in a certain direction means you're unable to orient yourself about that axis. Reaction wheels are typically designed to go into orbiting bodies so they can control orientation against the body they orbit. Greater range of motion means greater control of your orientation. Momentum wheel are wheels for the reason stated above, can continuously accelerate, and because wheels are primitive and reliable.

>>15608754
>2. Limited range of movement doesn't hinder AMBAC. There's a reason momentum wheels are wheels - it's so that they don't have to reverse their direction (and thus undo any rotation they imparted on the vehicle) to assume a new position. Pointing that out isn't "coming up with conditions" - that's just how physics works.
Pointing that out isn't the artificial condition. Saying that MS must do that and therefore AMBAC doesn't work is an artificial condition.

>AMBAC is explicitly meant to remove the need to spend reaction mass to maneuver -
And yet most MS meant for space combat that was designed or redesigned around the time AMBAC was invented on paper, in the real world, had thrusters for orientation. AMBAC enables a MS to reorient itself without wasting fuel but it's self-evident that it's not meant to replace thrusters altogether.

>not in some super specific circumstance like you keep claiming, which is a condition entirely of your own invention, but in general. But clearly, basic physics doesn't allow for arms and legs to do that.
There are no conditions for its use, just cases where it's useful. Which is my entire point. You're trying to claim it makes no sense because of some arbitrary scenarios or conditions you've imposed on its use and I'm saying its sound because there are more than a few scenarios in which it is useful. The idea is sound in physics. The idea that a body is going to return its limbs to the original position every time is ridiculous in the first place and even if it didn't you can control the time at which you reorient. It's not like a MS only swings its arms at one speed.

>>15608754
>Do you honestly think mobile suits are just going to sit quietly in space twisting themselves into strange contortions for station keeping? Is that REALLY what you're arguing? Because that's not the point of AMBAC (see above), and it's not some technological revolution (it's an extremely shitty version of momentum wheels).

Saying REALLY like a retard isn't going to make you right. A realistic depiction would have MS indeed contorting to make use of AMBAC when idling or cruising. The principle and the (virtually non-existent) depiction are different. You're saying the principle is bogus because you say it's useless in x-scenario. The reality is even in the shows we see MS idling or just cruising often enough that AMBAC would be useful for re-orienting a MS outside of combat where the limbs, or at least arms, are actually needed for other functions. Not being useful in every situation doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't work, it means it's not useful in every situation.

And no one claimed it was a technological revolution you retard. The fact that MS have limbs at all means it's just a reality they have to deal with in space that can be useful or harmful depending on how ideal the situation is and how efficiently the computer can plan movements to reduce the use of fuel. You continue to make shit up right to the end so eat shit.

>>15608754
>Swing your limb as far as you can in one direction - that's as much rotation as you can get. Need to rotate further? You can't move your arm back (you'll counter-rotate),

This one flew right over my head and I just bought into your bogus physics. If you built up angular momentum in space you would continue spinning until you counteract the momentum. Moving your arm back would just stop you by producing momentum in the opposite direction and returning you to rest. In practice gravity would affect it but you won't immediately counter-rotate into your original orientation.

>>15610985
A brain addled epiphany after a long night at the office. Ignore this, the rest still stands though.