Talk:X-02 Wyvern

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on April 7, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep, no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Okay, I translated the portion about its developement and operational history from the Japanese wikipedia.... but now I'm not sure about its factuality. Says there that the project started in 1998, but we can use the plane in Ace Combat Zero, which is like 1995. can someone go check on this? deadkid_dk 10:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's inclusion in ACZ is off-canon... kind of like a little bonus? Also, while it's history may apply to AC04, some elements may not cross over; e.g. they're in a "parallel world". IdoAlphaOmega 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The ACZ inclusion is definately off-cannon, it's sort of a 'brand loyalty' bonus for continuing to play the Ace Combat series. Especially as the Falken is supposedly also avaliable in ACZ through the same means. 24.83.77.253 07:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, according the the game the X-02 is from 2005, so its definately off-canon. However the AC4 world and AC5, AC0 worlds are the same. In the briefing screen in ACZero you can see Erusea to the east.
ACfan 20:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Hasegawa never released an X-02 Model 2 Ace Combat 05 3 Useless fancruft that ought to have been deleted a year ago 4 Weapons

[edit] Hasegawa never released an X-02 Model

The line saying hasegawa released an x-02 model is incorrect. The first and only official plane model based on Ace Combat games is the ADF-01 Falken by Bandai as far as I know. The image link to an X-02 model at the bottom is an Scratch-built one. There are also some images of X-02 models from some japanese scale model magazines running on internet, but the articles specify they're scratch-built too.

[edit] Ace Combat 05

This information was totally incorrect; the aircraft under the tarp on Sand Island was a damaged Grabacr F-15 ACTIVE, not an X-02. Everything after that error is pure speculation based on a mistake. Hrimfaxi 11:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, F-15 ACTIVE's have vertical tailfins, the one in the image is at the same angle of the X-02's taifin. Not to mention the rest of the aircrafts body just screams X-02. How you got an F-15ACTIVE out of that image I have no idea.Cbale2000 11:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It also just screams F-23. There's no official idea what it is, and in any case, where would 'that wreckage' have come from if it was an X-02? The idea doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Hrimfaxi 00:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a book released in Japan CONFIRMS that was an X-02. There's a link to it somewhere on ACS, I'll post it here later. Zaku Two 20:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it may have the tailfins of an F-23, but then how do you explain the very non-F-23 exaust nozzles? It's got F-15 Active Nozzles and F-23 tailfins, if that isn't an X-02 than I don't know what it could be! Where would 'that wreckage' have come from? It's just an easter egg namco threw in. If you want to speculate the storyline, it could have had engine failure and crashed before you saw it in the game. Cbale2000 17:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to ignorance. The fact that we don't know what it could be tells us nothing about what it is. It's an unknown aircraft, and that's all it is until we have some verifiable proof to the contrary. No other explaination makes any sense: what would an Erusean prototype fighter-bomber be doing near enough to Sand Island that it would be sent there for study, and how would it have got there? Hrimfaxi 10:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g129/acecombatzero/gogog.jpg I just pwned this entire conversation. If you can't see that that's an X-02, you're a frickin' moron. Zaku Two 20:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice with the insults, sparky. Have you bothered to translate the Japanese? Could it not say 'Belkan X-02 derivative aircraft' or something similar, since the huge GRUNDER logo militates against this being an Erusean manufactured aircraft? Hrimfaxi 14:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The rough translation of this is: http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g129/acecombatzero/AC5andX-02.jpg

"The enemy's aircraft that Pops and Genette saw in the hanger was the game's original aircraft called the "X-02". In the movie, a Grunder company marking was shown on the body, revealing that Grunder company and Belka was somehow connected in the shadows." Zaku Two 14:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This still rather fails at explaining why Belka was building Erusean aircraft, though. Since there's no addition there as to why it's happening in-universe, I'm still dubious about adding it. Hrimfaxi 15:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was a licensed copy? Regardless of whether it makes sense, Grunder made or modified at least one X-02. Zaku Two 19:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Still fails to make sense. Pops praises it for it's cost effective design, saying 'You can make three planes for the price of two this way.' Right, that means our Belkan X-02 is 26467 credits / aircraft, which would still make it the most expensive standard aircraft in the game by 267 credits.

If it's an X-02, Pops' praise makes no sense. Given there's no established relationship between Erusea and Belka, it being there makes no sense. Being as it's established that Sand Island is basically nowheresville, sending a captured advanced aircraft there rather than the local version of NASA makes no sense.

Or, to summarise: without further details, all attempts at making the aircraft's appearence anything other than an in-joke by the programmers make no sense. It doesn't work in the universe at all. Hrimfaxi 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You nerds need to calm the **** down. It's just a little easter egg and you're obsessing over continuity. Turn off the computer and take a nice walk and get some fresh air.JesseZinVT 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Claiming someone is pushing their point too hard is a traditional response when you can't argue with the point itself, I suppose. Hrimfaxi 17:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't fit into the storyline doesn't mean they couldn't have added it in anyways. You have to remember that there are a LOT of inconsistancies in the Ace Combat series, like how you can shoot down Pops in ACZ even though in AC5 one of the guys in the last level says he shot him down, but it couldn't be your ACZ character because he was "Never seen again". It doesn't make sence, these things happen, get over it. Cbale2000 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not the same thing at all. Dialog is an unreliable method of establishing factual data: it's entirely possible that the enemy pilot in AC5 was simply lying about having shot down Pops, or believed he had but actually shot down a different person. People make mistakes, and dialog isn't a yardstick of truth by any means. Also, since Pops only appears on one Ace path [as 0 tells three different versions of the same story], it could be that the path in question wasn't the one that actually happened.

On the other hand, a plane that is actually, certainly in a hangar on all paths in AC5 is more difficult to deal with. Pops can't be lying about it being there, since it is there, so since there's no logical chain of in-game events that could lead to it being present, it must be an artifact put in by the programmers. Without any suitable in-game explanation, we have to just give up on suspension of disbelief.

Also, the AC0 character Cypher was 'never seen again' in AC0 according to a narrator writing five years before AC5 [he refers to it as 'ten years ago' while Gennette said it was fifteen], so he could indeed have been one of the Ofnir / Grabacr squadron. You're just inventing contradictions where none exist. Hrimfaxi 07:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you let Grabacr and Pops fly next to one another for a period of time Grabacr will shoot down Pops and Bartlett but if you shoot down Grabacr before he shoots down Pops then he will continue flying and shoot down Bartlett and Pops if you didn't shoot him down already. So Pops can be shot down by Grabacr.Sam ov the blue sand 02:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuity aside, there's no denying that it is a X-02 in that FMV if even the official guide said so. We can add that fact in, but just don't make assumptions as to why it's there. _dk 01:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Useless fancruft that ought to have been deleted a year ago

So let me just get this straight: Articles about fictional planes from a video game? YES! Articles about actual people? NO! Honestly, people, this is the kind of thing that belongs on someone's ACE COMBAT fan-page. 71.202.217.229 09:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons

Although they may be look-alikes, in no Ace Combat game are specific weapon models or their manufacturers listed. It is technically incorrect, therefore, to use weapons such as AIM-9 Sidewinder in the armament listing. This is being posted in the related sections as well. IdoAlphaOmega 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)