Noyhauser

Not only that, I think the Qui Gon fight it made it more clear than any other fight the true difference between the Jedi Order vs the Sith. Watching Qui Gon sit and meditate while Maul pace around like a feral animal was over the top. The dynamics with the Shield Generators added a completely unseen effect as well.

Actually I had read reports that there was serious problems with the next generation apple notebooks, that they couldn't fit a G-5 chip because it had too much heat. There was even talk that it would have to use a liquid cooling system it ran so hot. So this might make sense since their note book buisness has been doing quite well as of late.

which board was that DH?

Legend of the Galactic Heroes aka Heldensagen Vom Kosmenief. It is an absolutely spectacular masterpiece of storytelling, spanning five years of an war between a Authoritarian Galactic Empire based along Wilhelmine German lines, and the Democratic but faultering Free Planets Alliance. No story is as epic as this one. For storyline Gundam and sadly even Macross doesn't even hold a candle. Even the much heralded Babylon 5 seems like a poor imitation, compared to the depth and presentation of this story. The War scenes are at times brutally realistic. Millions of men die in individual battles, and the episodes displays the tactics the generals use to conduct war, many of them taken from real battles. And the Ships are fantastic. The very utilitarian FPA designs vs the esthetics of the Galactic Empire ships. There are clear classes of warships with actual roles for them, rather than designs for the sheer fetish of having more deisgns. The only problem with this series is that it is quite talkie. Politics is huge in this game as various players plot their machinations. All through it there is major social commentary as well. The deep theme is whether or not the worst democracy is better than the best Authoritarian regime, as you can see. It can put some people off, but if you get hooked, you get dragged in fully. I think because it is soo deep that it can never be licenced in north america. That and the fact that its over 100 episodes long. The best way to start is to search bittorrent for the first few episodes to see if you like it. If you do, download the rest up until #55. By that point you will have to buy a mediocre chinese bootleg, but you'll get the gist of it. Other people on this forum will back me up when I say go and watch this series because it is fantastic.

To be honest, this sounds like one of those guys who knows a little about something and then prattles on how he knows more than anybody else. I don't think he has credentials either. Statements like this: Are just ridiculous. It doesn't sound right. Most intel guys are pretty quiet and self assured. They have a lot of training and are fairly academic in their outlook. They don't go sprouting off long posts on webpages about what they know and how they are better than everybody else. This statement is an immediate tip off: I've met a lot of intel guys as I do research in defence for academics and partly a bit of work, and yes this is a bit of a generalization, but they never act like this. In many ways they could get in more trouble by saying something like that than actually giving some tidbit about the fighter. I find it highly implausable that they would even claim to know the knowledge and publically broadcast it, saying "I can't tell you." A good comparision was brought up earlier. There was a guy who was an airforce pilot on a board Dave linked to, who discussed the F-15 and the like. I believed that guy because he was very measured, gave pretty precise information and was careful to what he discussed. He is in stark contrast to this guy who after one question went into immediate defensive mode claiming he was a AF guy. Secondly, they don't go around saying what they are studying is shxt or that the US will rule the skies ect. Most of them are long time professionals, who have studied their opponents and their field meticulously. Many have Masters or PhDs, from universities like Georgetown or John Hopkins ect, and don't go making grandiose claims that their fighter will rule the skies completely or is better than any other fighter on online forums. Rather they speak in terms of probabilities and the like, and have a measured tone. Really I'd take this guy with a grain of salt.

HG has used all the valks currently in the game (VF-4 included) in some sort of RT product, with the execption of the Ostrich and Elintseeker. With the super posable figures, they've already tried milking the original version of the macross TV series and DYRL. They released the un RT'd series and I wouldn't be suprised if they tried to release DYRL in the future. There could have been some discussion about releasing it in the US. This game was already being made by someone else, so all HG would have to do is get someone to "translate" it for the US. Somebody else does all the work, while they exploit it (sound familiar). HG might have made the demand that those valks had to be taken out in order to be released here (due to Manga having the rights to M+ and BW having M0). How about this for a scenario: The devlopment team has already created the valks and put them into an early build of the game. They get an order from the higher ups to remove them (for the afformentioned reasons). Instead of completely removing them, they just disable the ability to use them. The game was either released in Japan before the deal went south or they just didn't bother to put them back in (maybe it was time constraints or lasiness, I don't know). This is all speculation, of course. It's late where I am, so I could just be talking out of my ass. I think I can taste a little toe-jam*... The point being, we don't know any cold, hard facts about the missing valks. All we have are guesses. Checking every bit (no pun intended) of the game will answer at least some of our questions. Does anybody know how to contact the developer and ask them? BTW, I wonder if there's a way to get an early build of the game, like the one used in the demo movie... *reference to foot being in mouth, meaning to talk like a dumbass. I seriously doubt that there was any thought brought to this. Especially given Bandai's tumultous history with HG which reportedly sank their last attempt to bring a game over to this side of the ocean. I think they have essentially forsaken the North American market, and rather not deal with HG at all because of the implications it could have. Also HG does not have the rights to the VF-4's transformation, they have it for the desk model of it in fighter mode, but not of the actual fighter transformation that first appeared in Digital Mission VF-X. Thats why you never see the VF-4 in battroid mode in any of HG's works because they do not have the licence for it.

I can see where this thread is going.

Godzilla has a point (and is talking about one of my favorite eras of history) this requirement never happened because a "surge" deployment was never needed. Not many of us would remember this, but the greatest threat in the 1970s was a rapidly rebuilding Soviet Armed forces, one that it was increasingly becoming apparent would be able to essentially roll over NATO armed forces without resorting to the use of Tactical nuclear weapons. Later on with the Deployment of the SS-20 IRBM, NATO essentially lost what was called their "escalation dominance" or ability to head off the use of force by threatening to escalate the conflict (but thats for another time). Essentially the US wanted to keep maximum flexibility in its airforces. First there was the diminishing (but not removed threat) of a soviet nuclear bomber offensive against North America. So the US would have to retain some of its fighters as part of the NORAD network. Second There was need for flexibility in deployment. It was assumed that the USAF might have to come to the defence of Japan or other bases in East Asia, so a basing in the US (with long range fuel tanks) would be the best midpoint. Thirdly the there was a belief in surivability of NATO bases in Europe, from not only a tactical nuclear strike, but more likely Russian Spetnaz forces operating in the first days of the war. This was somewhat remedied in the 1980s with a base improvement program with uprgaded security measures and the construction of new hardenend shelters. So the US wanted to base a lot of these fighters in the US to make sure their airdefence wasn't wiped off the face of the earth in the first days of the war. Finally, it was a hell of a lot cheaper to base these fighters in the US then send them over at the time of war. Since tanker aircraft were undoubtedly at a premium, this was a vital requirement. Also Dave, these fighters would not be expected to molested while ferrying over and therefore just the tanks would be just fine. Fighters would fly into Spain or over the GIUK gap into Europe, and land far away from the front, as the Soviets wouldn't likely have anything that could touch them anyways (if they could penetrate that far into the NATO heartland, there would be far more enticing targets than an unarmed group of F-15s). If a war came the USAF wouldn't have the luxury of having many tanker aircraft available so this was a vital requirement for it to be able to do the transatlantic crossing without aid, even if it had to do so without any weapons.

wow this is like a Macross world moderator's dream/nightmare thread; its just begging to be taken behind the shed and put out of its misery.

does calmness in combat equat to skill in combat? I think thats a very weak proposition.

Looks like its a magazine describing the advance valkyrie series (aka the conceptual basis of Macross Plus) http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/transl...cedvalkyrie.htm

One major problem I heard about the Spitfire MkV carrying the "slipper tanks" was that they often Jammed on the mounting lugs, which actually decreased the aerodynamics of the fighter, and was often liable to dislodge unpredictably some time later often causing accidents when it hit squadmates.

Now I've got a question for you JBO and others... admittedly I'm not an expert in these matters (I just read this stuff at my leasure, usually from business mags when I come across them), but why is that so? Is it because data size has expanded beyond the capabilities of Processors to use that information? Like the way I see it, is there processor and graphics chips are too limited in their capacity to render things on screen so there is no need for so much memory? If that is the case, then the DVD format may become quickly outmoded on the PS3 and Xbox because it is better able to take advantage of the capabilities available.

No, If I did that I'd point out that #1 Kawamori didn't intend to Macross 7 to focus on fight scenes but on the storyline, and he blew the bank on Macross Plus, which was released at the same time. Secondly M7 was intended as a serialised story, that was to be watched week after week... which I did in 1995 in Japan. At the time when I watched it, I didn't notice the recycled footage that much, (although granted I picked the story up around episode 27). You on the other hand probably watched each episode back to back, where its blatantly obvious where recycled footage is used. I've seen far worse and far better than Mac-7. Although some people would say that they would have rather not seen Kawamori make the series, I think most of us are thankful that he did, even if it wasn't the perfect series that can please everybody. Umm we make inferences all the time given what we know of the show and what we can see. In the opening scenes of Macross Plus we can clearly see Isamu having problems with his wingmen being inexperienced (guys screaming when their pod is jammed for help, getting easily snuck up opon by other fighters), and that was a military fleet, so I'm sure its not a stretch to assume most of the Mac-7 fleet's members were even more in experienced. Are you sure about that? Training costs time and resources which is expensive and hard to do, and is inevitably not the same as real combat training. Also with restricted time you would likely train for certain missions types, and attacking fleets of technologically advanced fighters was probably not on their training courses... in comparison to the Vartua who had likely implanted doctrine into their pilots that was specifically aimed at UN Spacy tactics. Actually I think its clear that the protodevlin used their advanced knowledge to upgrade the VF-14 and other fighters so that they were clearly more advanced than their UN Spacy contemporaries. Furthermore I think many of the fighters were of the same vintage as the VF-11 anyways. Finally Jeinus, don't adress me as I'm of your other M-7 bashing partners. Usually I don't post in these threads or indulge people like you, but I'll bite just this once. I didn't come in here to be denigrated like I'm some idiot, and neither did I adress you in this fashion. I posted because I wanted to give my explaination of what we see on screen, not to be talked down to like Im some child. Personally I would like to discuss Mac 7 in a clear intelligent manner, like we do in the modern aircraft thread, but after about five posts it usually disintigrates to this level. Its a shame that we can't. At this point I hope the thread does get locked, just like all the others.

Well lets think about this. Most pilots in Macross 7 fleet were probably new pilots who were likely had little combat experience. I assume your comment about "how a VF-11 is supposed to be handled" is reference to Isamu dyson, which is an unfair comparison. Dyson was an ace as part of a military fleet that saw constant duty, rather than the long range colonization fleet which likely was a backwater for pilots (or whatever M-7's mission was... it had civillians). Him, Millia, Gamlin, are high quality pilots that put into the cockpit of any fighter will be able to inflict major damage. However what experience the vast majority of pilots in the M-7 fleet did have probably was against guerilla Anti-UN Spacy forces... not large scale fleet action (that is if they even had any experience at all). On top of that, what largescale fleet training they did have likely was calibrated against attacking zentredi, a basically static enemy that could have massive numbers, but at comparatively low technology, thousands of VF-11s were sufficient to stop an attack. I would argue the VF-11 essentially was VF-1 with upgraded avionics, aerodynamics and weapons, but nothing fundamentally different about its basic design philosophy. However when confronted by the Vartua, who used completely different tactics, possessed superior technology, had previous battle experience with UN-spacy, and conducted massive fleet battles, the Mac 7 units were completely outgunned. Later on during the conflict the Pilot ranks were probably thinned as UN spacy faced the same pilot shortage as Nazi germany or Japan did in 1943 to the end of the war. Training times were shortened and as a result poorer pilots were fielded, which exacerbated their deficiency vis-a-vis the mindcontrolled Vartua pilot.

Actually oihan, its clear that the xbox 360 will not have as powerful CPU as the PS3. IBM will produce chips for both systems, and they have stated that Microsoft's chip is a less advanced version of the PS3's chip. Also its not a cell chip either, which really is that revolutionary in its design. The Toshiba/IBM/Sony chip will actually suprass Moore's law when introduced.

PS3 uses a 8 cpu core, so that's plenty of revolution for ya. Back on the topic, buy a bigass PC, if you whant a console that's gonna have loads of good games, go with the PS3 ACtually its more than that, Its one of the first real cell processors available on the market (I think the Mac G5 uses a similar architecture). PS-3s when they come out will actually be faster than the slowest 500 supercomputers currently available (I think they run at 800+ gigaflops, while the new IBM/Toshiba/Sony cell architecture will be at 1.3 terraflops). The xbox will use a less powerful IBM chip instead. Really its ironic because last time around the PS-2 came earlier but was less powerful than the xbox, now its completely reversed. However these are just matters of minor importance beside A-1's blinding presence

It was a good idea in concept, but in implementation it was very poor. I mean Silcore is a good system, still better than most others... but when you compare it to the simplicity of Heavy Gear Second Ed. it doesn't hold a flame. If you wanted to run a Macross system, I'd use the old Jovian Chronicles system... and redesign it using the Companion to make a new setting. Jovian chronicles is essentially a gundamesque system (even has rules for transformations) so its not a far leap at all. And if you were keen enough you could use the lightning strike rules (a tactical derivative of the older Sillouette V2 rules) to create a massive fleet based tactical game. I'd like to create rules for Legend of Galactic Heroes Tactical game.

I was a huge fan of the Sillouette system, I was a major supporter of the system from aroung 1995 to 2003... Although I didn't contribute to it I knew several that did very well. I will say it WAS maybe the best system I have ever encountered... It was perfect for RPG AND tactical gaming. It was a simple, yet brilliantly effective system for decribing and operationalizing any phenomena for gaming purposes. however when they tried to consolidate the line under the Silouette core line, it was a disaster of sorts. Poorly done and full of holes, it really brought the down the line. As it stands if you can find the Heavy gear 2nd edition or Jovian Chronicals books you should pick it up (rather than the newer silcore books circa 2004 and after). I think Jovian Chronicals can be easily adapted to game macross... and some work has been done on it.

wow, I used to post there as well morpheus (as usual with rambling technical posts). I was just about to post photos of my growing YS Warship collection. I doubt it was anybody who actually posted on the forum that did this... all of the crowd seemed to be pretty chill diehard LOGH fans like myself. Its a shame really.

on the VF-1 its a tiedown point... so stuff doesn't float away in zero gravity situations... I would assume its the same for cars as well.

Oh I don't doubt that the Iranian Airforce won't try to contest. I just think you are overestimating the combat effectiveness of their forces. The AWG-9 is a good piece of equipment, maybe from the 1970, and even the 1980s. How do you think it would go up against the Raytheon AESA AN/APG 79 arrays on F-15s and F/A-18E/Fs... Do you think this radar which is 30 years its junior is actually worse than the AWG-9? How do you think the AWG will operate with heavy ECM from Prowlers, or with an E-3 circling behind them. Sure you point out that the Iranians used F-14s as cheap Awacs, but the fact is that its a poor substitute for a real E-2/3. And if they did go into Iran, they would likely use F-22s... which would be overkill in its own right. I don't deny that the US will lose a plane, two or even five. Against those numbers it would be foolish to say that no losses will be incurred. We lost fighters to the iraqis too. But to be honest, if they tried to take on the US air forces, they would be quickly removed from the sky. I think the USAF would be happy if they did contest air superiority. It would make their lives a lot easier. Its easy to say from your vantage point "oh yeah I think they will have an effective defence"... a lot of people said this about operation enduring freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom...people thought Afghanistan would be as bad as it was for the Soviets but in truth the US quickly won both of those operations (well the actual combat side of it). I don't have blind faith in the US air capabilities, but I do realize where they are exceptional. And this is one area where I think they would shine in. Your right that the IRaqi airforce didn't contest in 1991, But the US was waiting for them nonetheless . Thousands of CAP sorties occurred uneventfully, and if the Iraqis did show up it would have been a bloodbath then too, as pilots were itching for combat. The same would go for iran. Also you say that Iranians have real combat experience. How many real veterans do you think are left 17 years after their last possible combat mission? Given that the Iranian airforce is not a prestigeous posting, I doubt many are left. I think American pilots have a far greater liklihood of being in combat than their iranian counterparts, and they do have red flag and innumerous other training missions to keep their skills on edge.

According to the military balance Iran has 4 Sqd. of 65 F-4D/E 4 Sqd with 60 F-5E 1 Sqd of 30 Su-24MK (including former Iraqi Aircraft) 7 Su-25 (inc iraqi) 24 F-1E (inc iraqi) 2 Sqd of 25 F-14 1 sqd of 24 F-7M 2 sqd of Mig 29UB (inc. Iraqi) AEW- 1 IL-76 (iraqi) Serviceability 60% for american aircraft, 80% for Russian and Chinese. If you think they have any chance against a US AEF operating out of Qatar, with Aegis and Awacs support, you have got to be kidding. To emphasize Ewilien's numbers from global security, they can't put all those planes in the air at one time, except for a very quick burst operation (think Israel's Pre-emptive attack against Egypt and syria in the 67 war), because of maitenence down time, and the like. Really you are looking at 1/3 to 1/2 being available for a mission. The US however can easily outmatch them in the air. The Iranian airforce would be looking at a repeat of what happened to iraq in 1991. Maybe they may down one or two planes, but thats it.

Actually I think the best controller ever was the Nintendo Virtual Boy's controller. It held better than anything ever made before or since. too bad its platform was crap. And I also say the Sony playstation controller is probably one of the best out there. I've played all three platforms out there for hours on end, and the playstation is the only one that is comfortable after like 4 hours of play, and the buttons are easily memorizable (not for me, but for new people). I rarely hit the wrong button using it. Even the Xbox small controller isn't as good as it. I think they could tweak it to make it better, but Its still a ubiquitous piece of design.

So we should build 100 more raptors because of 25, 30 year old fighters...refurbished with solid state electronics.. in a country that has had anemic economic growth the last two decades, and doesn't look like its going to get any better anytime soon. yeah right.The International Institute of Strategic Studies reports that US AC servicability is at 50 to 60%. Sorry I don't think so. Iraq in 1991 had more of a capability Iran today, and the US airforce is far more advanced than they were in 1991. The assertion boils down to wild speculation, where the USAF and USN would just blunder along waiting for the Iranians to shoot them down. Edited because it was a little too political for these boards.