David Hingtgen

Actually, the F-15 is one of the few planes where there is a delimiter switch. It's for the engines though, not the flight controls/software. Due to the crappy reliability/lifetime of the F100, they're all limited to 98% thrust, even during active conflicts. (that last 2% makes all the difference when it comes to parts failures, overheating, etc) Pushing the button allows 100% thrust, and over 100% in fuel flow, RPM, EGT, etc. The increase is quite small, but it is there. 30 sec limit, unless it's life-or-death, then you're allowed to use it longer, but then the engines will need to be removed from the aircraft, checked, repaired, etc. (Super Hornets have a switch too, I think it allows up to 12G in pitch)

Have I just never seen it before, or is there a new ad for TF:WFC featuring Shockwave, which is awesome? I must have Shockwave now... Saw it at Gametrailers.com while getting the new SW:TOR trailer.

Yeah, you definitely feel for Dren, especially with how Elsa treats her as an "adult".

Russian Knights:

Fokker is typically mis-pronounced in the US, to the point that the correct version is thought to be incorrect. Fokker and Focker sound identical, except in the US...

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)