David Hingtgen

It's like, 4-player Strider, from Square, with Powerstone and even MegaMan X mixed in: http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/29797

Man, I can't think of any part where I'd even consider laughing. ::edit:: Oh wait, yeah, when she smiles at the end of the very first scene at the farm, that was good. ::edit:: I do think "disturbing" is probably the best description. It's not gross/gory, it's not a suspense thriller, it's only barely even in the horror genre IMHO---the "scary" parts are such a small fraction of the total run time and mostly all clumped together at the end---a lot of PG movies are like that. I think my favorite moment was "tedious". PS--I didn't like the "big surprise" at the end (not the VERY end one, that one was SO obvious she didn't even need to stand up), even though it was blatantly foreshadowed (one of those things you don't realize was foreshadowed until it happens). Didn't ruin the movie, but definitely kinda ruined the end for me. That falls under the "squick" category. ::edit:: Oh man, where do you get a plush baby Dren?

Yes it would---but aren't theirs a bit smaller, too? They are highly canted, which is unusual for a rudder---highly-canted dual-purpose fins tend to be of "slab" configuration where the entire structure moves, not just a hinged section---the YF-23 is like that. To me this says they're mainly angled out so as to reduce overall height with the large ventral fins making up the difference for yaw stability--not angled out to help with roll. A rudder that angled is more like an aileron--but the -19's not taking advantage of that fact--or is even being hampered by it. Yaw is the hardest thing to get from thrust vectoring, short of having each engine set at different power levels. (if you have the ability to directly move the nozzle sideways, which the -19 doesn't appear to, you will yaw, but it will be a sloppy, crabbing, non-aerodynamic turn---it'll be ugly) So you really should have a rudder of some sort, even with vectoring. Being so angled out greatly reduces their effectiveness as a rudder--but as it appears that their only fuction is for yaw, that's just how it is. It's quite possible the -19 has yaw-only control like a YF-23 does (differential aileron/flaperon deployment, to avoid rolling issues from using the angled tail surfaces--which is still aerodynamically ugly, but not so much as using raw engine thrust) but we've seen no evidence of this--still, IMHO any valk should be able to move any surface in any direction in any combination. (part of the problem of evaluating valk flight controls, is that FBW allows more and more complex interactions that traditional "stick and rudder"---the YF-23 could easily move EVERY control surface for even simple commands---even the F-18 will do this for a roll as its computers can calculate out "perfect" manuevers----just imagine what a valk can process, and then respond too) (a Hornet will execute a "perfect" roll if you hold the stick to the side---it's like an Airbus in that respect, not a Boeing---as in the stick is used to tell the computer what RESULT you want, not direct control of the flight surfaces)

All I wish is for the original voice actor. He *makes* that character. But they'll probably hire someone famous to do a generic "deep, badass" voice.

3x AA.

When it comes to aerodynamic controls, the -A wins hands-down. Thing is, valks (unlike most planes) can also have non-aerodynamic controls to move them around--namely verniers and thrust vectoring. Again, the Harrier (and now F-35B) are about the only planes comparable to a valkyrie in that sense. Think about it--with the amount of verniers the average valk has, you could have no rudders and no ailerons, and still have full control/maneuverability.

Depends on the verniers. 99% of real planes don't have them so most comparisons are done using aerodynamic-only controls, and we know the F/S's are better than the A's. Plus, it's possible the F/S have superior thrust vectoring as well.

It seems that Grace's should be shipping June 17th. No new pics though, AFAIK. (I think my "feeling" above will be true)

Would prefer DVI, but VGA is acceptable. (since I currently am using a DVI-VGA adapter anyways)

20in due to space. Maybe 21in. Currently have a 16in (so it says, looks more like 15in) CRT (yes, it's old). Additional consideration I just thought of: Speakers. My speakers are currently mounted on the sides of my monitor, and the volume knob is on the right one, thus very close to my mouse, and thus super-easy to adjust instantly (I can literally keep my hand on the mouse and just reach up with my index finger). I'll lose that with a new monitor/new speakers. (I could keep the speakers themselves, but really have no way to mount them). If there's some speakers that'll mount on a new monitor, with a volume knob over by the mouse (as opposed to being near the middle), that's a huge plus to me. I keep finding "speaker bars" for new monitors, but they seem low-power and low-quality (I don't need audiophile speakers, far from it---I just don't want crap speakers).

Suggestions for a new monitor? Say, 20in or so? BestBuy's the only place in town that sells them, so it'll have to be from their stock. I've noticed that more and more are "PC brands" (Dell, HP, Compaq) as opposed to LG, Samsung, etc.

Plus the fact that modern fighter jets don't have real glass for the canopies--it's plastic, thus the rainbow effect. Plus, glass can't do THIS:

Never liked the F4D, F7U is "attractive in a weird sort of way"----so long as it's one of the early ones, not the more common "bulged canopy" version.

Anyone have any translations from that page? The "shaded in very light grey" panels near the wing root still aren't explained---are they hinged? Retractable? That's the area that's always "sliced through the leg" when swinging back.

Yeah, funny how Lockheed's products tend to do that a lot lately, after they bashed Northrop over the YF-23 doing the exact same thing...

Only file down the knurling on the shoulder pins. All the others should stay knurled. (and really, the knurling isn't the problem, it's actually the smooth part that's wrong with the shoulder pins---but it's easier to remove the knurling than change the pin shaft itself)

"Moment arm" isn't a noobish term at all. For planes, it's part of "moment" which is basically a "measurement of effectiveness" a control surface has over a plane's movement. Example: All planes balance about their center of gravity. All forces acting upon a plane are considered to be some distance and direction from this point. All forces (including lift) will effectively treat the center of gravity as the pivot point that the plane will move about. Think of a teeter-totter. Pushing at the ends, is much more effective than pushing near the middle. Even if it's the same amount of force, the further away from the pivot point that a force is applied, the more effect you'll get. Moment is very similar to torque (if not identical). It's force multiplied by distance. 5ft and 200lbs is the same as 200ft and 5lbs, they're both 1000ft-lbs. A plane's ailerons roll the plane about its center of gravity---the further out they are, the more effect they have. This is why ailerons are near a wing's tips in the first place. The distance, is the "arm" of the moment. (the preceding sentence applies for all physics, not just planes) If the ailerons can exert, say, 1000lbs of force, and they are 20ft from the center of gravity, then the moment arm is 20ft, and the moment is 20,000lb-ft. This is the reason that if a plane is shortened (as opposed to stretched) it will often need a BIGGER tail, as the moment arm (distance from the center of gravity) of the tail surfaces has been reduced---so the raw amount of force needs to be increased to make up for it, to have as much moment/effectiveness as the original version. A plane with a wider wingspan, assuming the ailerons are at the tips, will always have a larger moment arm, and thus moment, vs a plane with shorter wings. (unless the shorter plane's ailerons are increased in size to compensate--which doesn't appear to be the case in the VF-19F/S) Also, as I'm sure the YF-19's canards can apply at least a bit of roll, their loss would exacerbate (though only slightly) the F/S's decrease in roll. Of course---if the F/S's ankle verniers are notably superior to the original version, and work well in the atmosphere, they may be enough to compensate for the loss of aileron effectiveness.

The bigger moment arm would give a long-winged -19 superior roll-rate and roll-response, period. But everything else seems pretty miniscule.

Axelay still is in my all-time top 10 soundtracks. Just awesome. As for Yoshi's Island---I did *everything*. Every flower, red coin, etc. Took a while, but it was fun, 2D platforming at its very best. I really wish there were trophies then, that'd be worth a platinum... Zelda: Link's Awakening. The best Zelda game nobody's played. I rank it VERY high. Maybe above Link to the Past.

Graham---Thrust is a big factor when it comes to turning performance. Like most things when it comes to flight---raw power can often substitute for fancy aerodynamics. Talos---hmmn. As FSW tends to inherently be used for VERY high alpha, I'm wondering if the highly-canted canards may be acting more like rudders in that situation, and actually used for roll control at like 50 AOA---generally you don't want to try to use ailerons to roll when at very high alpha, you'll just spin---adverse yaw in the extreme. So you use the rudders, to intentionally create proverse roll. With how back-heavy/unstable the -19 is, plus FSW, maybe it was intended to be flown with as high an alpha as possible, spend a lot of time there for pure dogfighting and have such an advantage in that area, that nothing could compete with it in certain situations? Kind of a one-trick-pony, but if it's that good of a trick... Re: stubby wings having more root area/chord---if the gloves have a decent camber, they could make a lot of lift, but this is a fighter, not an airliner----a big root wouldn't be nearly as adaptable as a YF-19's wing---I'll just assume a YF-19 wing naturally has very little, symmetrical camber like an F-16, and mainly uses computer-controlled leading and trailing edge flaps to create camber as needed, instantly. A fixed glove could conceivably create just as much lift at certain angles, but couldn't be adjusted like a wing could. Re: wingtip verniers. Frankly---it just has to have some. I'm thinking they're slots, like a Harrier's. There is just no way you're going to design a plane that uses verniers for primary roll control in space, and NOT put some on the wingtips! Plus, the VF-1 clearly has them there as we see them used in the opening DYRL fight, even if they're not canonically shown on the lineart AFAIK. (at best, there's a panel line in the right place, but it's not even a proper slot)

Guess I should summarize my previous post: I can't imagine those small, high-mounted, highly-canted canards (or lack of) having much effect in the atmosphere. I seriously wonder if they're like the Tu-144's---just there for landing (and a space-borne plane would thus have little need for them). Or maybe like a B-1B's, to help it be a smooth, stable bombing platform at high speeds---more like a gyration dampener than a directional control. As for the wings---the shorter wings should increase the roll rate/responsiveness, but decrease both instantaneous and sustained turn rate. Instantaneous turn rate: how fast you can turn if you're willing to sacrifice all your speed/alt/energy for one heck of a turn. You will bleed speed/altitude quickly. You will never make a full 360 with this. Usually a quarter-turn or so before you run out of energy, MAYBE a 180. Generally a defensive turn, to break a missile lock etc (as you'll sacrifice your energy, so you won't be doing anything offensive for a while). Sustained turn rate: fairly self-explanatory, compared to above. This will often be your "360 turn demo" by an F-15/16/18 at an airshow---the best full 360+ turn they can make, while remaining at constant speed/altitude.

Ok, is "VF-19E" some recently-introduced-designation for Basara's? I've never seen any official -19's other than YF, A, F, S, and Kai. Anyways---there's 2 main ways to use canards. 1. As a direct control surface, basically a forward-mounted elevator. 2. To influence the airflow going over the wing. SAAB in particular likes to use them this way---by angling the canard, you alter the angle that the airflow hits the wing leading edge, thus allowing you to control the flow over the wing before the air encounters the---this really comes into play in high-alpha situations where you may otherwise encounter flow separation. Updraft and downdraft at the leading edge of the wing is often overlooked IMHO (as is the whole circulation theory of flight/lift overall). All that said, the -19's canards really do look more like the former, as they are too high and forward to influence the wings---they'd barely influence the gloves. But of course--those are some tiny canards. True, they are mouted far forward, thus giving them a large moment arm, especially considering how far back the -19's center of gravity must be---but the -19 is just plain huge, with "massive amounts of mass" aft---frankly I fail to see how those tiny little fins could "move that ass around", frankly. Now as for wings: I'm always a fan of area. Big wings have a lower loading, and a lower loading means more turning for a given speed/energy etc. Look at the trend in fighter planes----you saw many skinny-winged planes in the 50's and 60's. But then wings started getting bigger---first the F-4, then the F-15, F-16, and then up to the F-22 with its huge wing, and the YF-23 with the biggest of them all. (Swing-wings are a different category, and when swept they behave much like a delta-wing, incorporating the gloves and even tailplanes into their effective area) However---bigger wings are simply more mass, and more drag---generally they will turn quicker, and be able to sustain any given turn rate for longer. But they are slower to respond. The best example there will ever be is the Spitfire vs Fw190. The original Spitfire due to its large elliptical wing could out-turn an Fw190. But the 190's stubbier wing could respond faster and out-roll the Spitfire---it *changed* direction so fast that the Spitfire's better turn rate was useless. So, they clipped the Spitfire's wingtips. It could now roll faster, though it had to give up some raw turn-rate. But the real question is---how does any of THIS matter in SPACE? With how thin the outer sections of the wings are, their mass is nothing compared to the rest of the valk, and with how verniers work, the wingtip-mounted ones now have a much smaller moment-arm, which I think would be a far greater detriment to manueverability than any mass-savings could help.

The claws could "shoot out" on grapple lines and retract, so it's kind of like Batman's gizmo.

Ok, I was specifically referring to the most commonly-used ones for planes/valks, from Testors/Tamiya/Humbrol etc.

Most clear coats aren't a special formula or anything---they just don't have pigment. Clear gloss is the same as glossy bright red, without the red pigment. Clear flat is the same as flat black, without the black pigment. Treat clear coat paints the same as you would normal paint. Future is one of the few exceptions, as it's not intended to be used as model paint, it just works really well for our purposes. (some people like future so much they do try to mix it with paint and use it for their color coats---works with some, not others)