Jump to content

David Hingtgen

Moderator
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    16990

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by David Hingtgen

  1. David Hingtgen
    Would anyone mind if the mods deleted pics in posts that are 3 issues ago or older? When you've got multiple issues on the same page, it can take a while to download and scroll to get to the new stuff.
  2. David Hingtgen
    Thanks much, ordered it tonight.
  3. David Hingtgen
    Sometimes I wonder if Lucasfilm is just doing self-parodies with names the past decade. (I'm not even going to try to spell these right) Voolvif Monn---hey, a wolf-man! Savage Opress---yeah, he's savage and will likely oppress people Elan Sleazebaggano----hey, a sleaze-bag drug dealer! And of course, most Darth names. Vader was the only one with any "thought" put into it. We're runing out of "evil" terms at this point. Darth Badguya is probably next, or Darth Evilpersonis.
  4. David Hingtgen
    I think the question was intended more like "is there a valk design that is UNIVERSALLY disliked?"
  5. David Hingtgen
    Ok, I haven't bought a Gundam kit in a couple of years at this point. What's currently a cheap place to get new kits from? (for people in the US) Specifically, I want the new HGFC Nobel Gundam. But a lot of places still list it as pre-order, and HLJ is sold out. Note I said cheap, not best-fastest---if it takes 4 weeks to get here, no problem, so long as it's a cheaper shipping option. Also, no "Paypal only" places.
  6. David Hingtgen
    I still don't like the VF-0 much, just a lazy ret-con of the VF-1 IMHO. The VF-0D however, is nice--and is what the standard V-0 design should have been to start with.
  7. David Hingtgen
    I'm posting this here way in advance, just in case: I'm a huge KOTOR fan. I never ever saw a Darth Revan fig despite looking many times (and even having other people look), and they were rare online even if you were willing to pay scalper rates. Thus, when the Bastila Shan figure comes out, I figure it'll be scalped even more---but I really want one! Or two. If you find one, please pick it up. (seriously, it might be like 9 months out from now, but just so people know...)
  8. David Hingtgen
    Who decides how much to risk on a question? Watson? IBM's guys take a poll? Especially for the final one--I'd be impressed if the computer can guess if the human competitors know the answer, and base its wager off of their chances of gettting it right...
  9. David Hingtgen
    Bigger pic of CW Barriss Offee: http://img208.poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20110113/14/55214677201101131432351955405128292_002.jpg
  10. David Hingtgen
    Ok, currently I'm at 112% DPI. While it still messes up the alignment at Pizza Hut, all icons/choices are still at least clickable/viewable. Most every other site works if set to "smallest" and I don't have to constantly uncheck/recheck "ignore style and size". ::edit 2:: 121% is actually the "next step up", not 120%. (yes, I'm going 1 by 1). May be the best compromise---a few sites are slightly mis-aligned, but generally still work, and everything else is just that extra little smidge better that I really prefer. "Quick reply" and "edit post" (like I'm typing right now) at MW is still quite tiny though. ::edit:: Switching to rich-text format for the editor solves that problem. Still going to tweak the registry later, fiddle with system fonts etc---I got the clock decently sized without killing the web-functionality, but many programs still display quite small. (CPU-ID and GPU-Z in particular give me issues)
  11. David Hingtgen
    I've been "starting from scratch" with all my settings. (changed to XP "silver" theme, to make sure everything is default to start with) I'm trying "standard" DPI, as that seems critical for "minimum size". Everything seems to be much easier to enlarge, than to shrink. So far I've got stuff "mostly good" but as I type this, I realize that 'quick reply' gives me uber-teeny tiny text. Like, 1pt font... But I do current have most sites and files/programs looking good. "Display properties" etc though still has tiny text.
  12. David Hingtgen
    PS--anyone willing to actually measure their "common" font size? To me, 2mm high is too small, but that's about what I'm seeing on most other people's screens.
  13. David Hingtgen
    Again, thanks much for the pics. I think I have everything figured out---I just think there's no solution for me at the moment. After doing lots more experimenting and comparing to your pics, I think my main issue was "the smallest setting is still too big to fit in the tables". (unless everything is set to default, which makes most things TOO small). I went back and fiddled with my DPI settings for the PC/display itself. If I go back to default, everything works well, and pretty much matches your pics. This makes fonts/tables easily adjustable. However, it brings back the main problem I had when my monitor was new---all system text is too small. From file names to icons to Windows Log-in to drop-down menus to the recycle bin. I can back off on the DPI a bit---but no setting other than default seems to work with tables/grids still. So I'm back to my preferred DPI, as that's utterly essential to sheer PC operation IMHO. I'm going to do some googling and see if anyone else has a DPI/font issue. At least now I've narrowed it down a lot. (does anyone else here have a 22in monitor that's native 1920x1080?). But even if it was a 24in 1080p, or a 22in 1600x900 I don't think it'd be a big enough difference to leave DPI at the default. Unless Win7 inherently handles high-res/DPI better--another thing to investigate. (as WinXP was presumably designed for 4:3 CRT, but Win7 would expect 16:9 LCD) New/related question for everybody---could I have some just generic program/desktop pics from Win7? Anything BUT web-browsing. I'd like to see how the system font displays. Any of Window's own desktop menus (like the display properties or an opened start menu) would be especially useful. And if you've got a 1920x1080 22in monitor, that'd be especially helpful to compare absolute font size. Still, from a few grabs I can find online of Win7, it still looks kinda small to me. (not as tiny as XP at default DPI, but still enough that I'd have to change it some). If I'm really lucky, Win7 at 125% DPI looks good for the system itself, yet still keeps small browser fonts small enough.
  14. David Hingtgen
    I very much appreciate your experimenting/report, but that is exactly how IE 7 works. Only difference I note, is that no combination of options or sizes or fonts allows pizza hut's (and many others) grid/table to work right with all options visible/aligned. EXCEPT letting the site/browser dictate every aspect---which makes everything in every site quite small. I did experiment a while back with Firefox's minimum-font-size thing, but it also doesn't work the way it needs to---specifying "no smaller than 12pt" is the same problem---NOTHING will be smaller than 12 etc. And a lot of tables etc won't fit at all. But if you turn it off---then most forums and text will go down to like 4pt just like the tables/grids... I need a "basic text minimum size that won't affect tables/grids". In either FF or IE...
  15. David Hingtgen
    The airbrake thing is most likely a temporary spin-chute housing. Like the orange/white YF-19 had.
  16. David Hingtgen
    Ok, I made a screen cap from Pizza Hut (as it's the last one I can remember that was quite messed up) using both my normal settings, and the default font settings (letting the site dictate things). but it shows well how "things no longer fit" when the font size is increased. Many sites won't allow even like a 5% larger font without totally screwing up--stuff won't merely be mis-aligned, but things will actually be gone/invisible---most often the last/bottom option, which is usually yes/send/search etc. (my own email attachment program now only shows like 2 pixels to click on the "attach" button--but at least the button is still present) ::edit:: Also added the bottom of the Thalys site. This one gets quite messed up. Really, all I ask is for a BIT bigger font, but it royally screws things up--is it so hard for a site to render correctly when using any font other than what it was designed for? I did the same for MW. To me, Mike's settings on default look the same as mine on default. I currently have a 22in monitor at 1920x1080. I did try going to 1600x900 as an experiment, but it just makes things blurry--*web* text itself seemed to be the same size, surprised by that. (programs, task bar etc---that font increased in size, as expected with a lower res). Here's some caps (jpgs to reduce time) ::edit:: For comparison, so people know---with my settings on my monitor, a capital "M" in a MW post, is 3.5mm high. Not some half-inch large-type font or anything. Checking "default" settings of MW of both mine and the pic Mike sent, I get 2mm high capital M's. Readable, but not "comfy" if that makes any sense. PS--I know from screen caps of other forums I go to, that other people use non-default fonts when browsing, so I can't be the only one with this issue...
  17. David Hingtgen
    Web browser tables/charts font question: One thing I have had issues with for years now, is the fact that many tables/charts (interactive ones, like say airline reservation or pizza ordering sites) only work/fit with a teeny-tiny little font to fit inside the grid lines etc. Like, 4pt or something. Now, while I can read it, I don't like it. To the point that for years I've had my font settings in MSIE to over-ride both font type and font size. However, this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for some sites to display or even work correctly, as the bigger font screws things up--either things in grids become mis-aligned, or the buttons to choose options just "get shoved outside the grid into oblivion". Drop-down/hover menus on a site are often the worst. Firefox was no different when I tried it---similar issues IIRC. (it was one of the main reasons I tried FF) I have suspected/heard that IE 7 (yes, that's what I use, I hate IE 8 and was not fond of Firefox) may just not deal with newer sites as well---could be true, as the problem seems more prevalent lately, and was not really an issue when IE 7 was newish. So---since I hate IE 8 and it'd be pointless to try it again when IE 9 is out---would buying Win 7 now so as to be able to use IE 9 help this situation? In other words: How does IE 9 deal with charts/tables/radio buttons when you're making it display a larger-than-the-site-says font? I can take screen caps to illustrate the issue, if it's not clear what I'm talking about. I really would like a permanent solution, as I'm having to adjust font size and style all the time now, going back and forth. (and it's several menus deep, not a one-click thing) There's a big difference between font I *can* read, and font that's comfy/easy to read for hours... And most sites like to make it teeny-tiny. It's not just the new monitor, my 17in 1024x768 had the same issue, just slightly less. It's like the main problem is that a website/browser can't figure out how to enlarge the buttons/options/gridlines themselves to accomodate a font size/type other than what the site was designed with. Surely I'm not the only person who over-rides the default font settings so as to not have to spend every minute dealing with 2mm-high letters... http://www.thalys.com/nl/en/practical-travel-guide is especially bad at the bottom---there's 3 layers of stuff overlapping at the bottom of the page, hard to click/see. Ironically, that site is "too big" with my preferred settings, setting it to default everything is "just right". But 90% of sites are the opposite---They're way too tiny by default. But making them bigger makes some things "disappear". MW has teeny-tiny text by default, but doesn't have any problems when viewed with larger font settigns. Could people post a screen cap of MW so I can see how it is at default settings on their screen? Right now I actually have it at "default" everything while testing other sites and most of the lettering at MW is literally 2mm high. Strangely, editing a post gives much larger/nicer text in the edit box.
  18. David Hingtgen
    Most stealth planes have very large, simply-shaped gear doors. It's because: A. Doors are hard to stealthify (that's a word!) and the fewer you have, and the simpler the shape, the less work it is. B. Every time you open a door/panel, it screws up the seal, so you try to combine weapon/gear/access panels as much as possible. So most stealth planes have very large gear doors, to provide access to other systems without having to have more access panels. The F-22 and J-20 main gear doors are roughly similar, just hinged at the opposite ends.
  19. David Hingtgen
    F-22 has worse actuator fairings IMHO, has always spoiled to the design to me. Hard to imagine they're stealthy...
  20. David Hingtgen
    Irony: A US or German company copies the original Chinese kit...
  21. David Hingtgen
  22. David Hingtgen
    J-20 flew. I'm sure (hoping) there'll be better video soon, but here it is: http://www.56.com/flashApp/56.10.12....=57752850&ref= (not the most interesting, it won't actually takeoff until about 4 mins in, then they cut right to it landing)
  23. David Hingtgen
    Nephtis (or Neith) would rock, and to a lesser degree, ArdJet. But really, the original Idolo I think is the coolest-looking one. (never liked the "ears and tail" of Anubis) Idolo could take out Jehuty in a second, and would "last for a while" against Anubis. Hathor I think would be an even combat match for Anubis if not actually superior, but the "foot wings" and head-crest remind me of an inverted Crescens.
  24. David Hingtgen
    I wonder if it's one of BoB's pics...
  25. David Hingtgen
    Retracting the ventral fins in space seems pointless---it should fold in the tailfins and canards too then. Note: folding ventral fins aren't that uncommon in the real world. But same as the Sv-51, they're only moved to provide ground clearance when landing.
×
×
  • Create New...