David Hingtgen

Cory---you'll note I never capitalize quarian etc. I was actually expecting someone to call me out on it, so it could be explained without preaching/getting on a soapbox. But Prothean is capitalized? Doesn't that go against the rule?

The F-35 is officially "comparable to" the F-16 in agility. And if it was .0001% better in some part of the envelope, you know the official word would be that it was "superior to" the F-16. Anyways---I think the nations that are going to have the ASRAAM as the main missile for the F-35 have the right idea. As for F-16 looks---uber-fugly hump-backed UAE (and Greek and Israeli) ones don't count.

Yup. I think a lot of people went after Tali first, as she was a "known" character and we'd been waiting to get her. I'll get Legion as early as possible next time.

Looks are everything when it comes to public perception of how bad-ass a plane is. F-16 wins there.

My guess is it is. I'll do the opposite with my Paragon.

I took Tali for Legion's loyalty mission--figured it'd be a learning experience for her. Nevermind the fact that she's the also best anti-geth character in all of ME. (AI hacking and shield drain, hello)

I did the same, but I don't remember a "getting even" comment. Then again, I read that scene/outcome will often result in loss of loyalty for him, but it didn't for mine---maybe my Shep was influential enough to change it?

Regarding the experiments: PS---the DLC mentioned earlier? It's right. That pic is the character select pic, it's already in the PC version's data etc.

Quicker/easier to test. Seems like the first/main thing they want to do is make the FAST pack do what it was originally designed to---carry missiles! Live-fire tests this summer. Also, radar upgrades, though likely the same as the latest F-15C's have. Making it "stealthy" will come later. So new weapons/avionics first, airframe changes later.

Ok, quarian discussion and likely effects of ME 2 on ME 3 in that regard:

Well it's not going to be an upgrade in speed nor agility, that's for sure. I think mainly it's going to be sensors/avionics. Plus the "occasionally used" possibility for first-day stealth.

Yes, but for Helena Blake, a lot of people are reporting PS--it seems confirmed that you can't pick again (or pick a different weapon) in new game+. Which sucks, as I think the vast majority of people would like to at least have the OPTION to try something new. I really don't think a shotgun's going to be all that useful on insanity.

Mike---you're missing out on a lot of the references I'd say. There's zillions of references---darn near everything mentioned on ME 2's Citadel and Illium, is straight from ME 1's Citadel (mainly elevator radio ads). I *loved* that the Hamlet production had actually happened, as I'd heard it proposed a zillion times playing ME 1. As for Nassana in ME 1---she'll give you the quest if you haven't already encountered it already by the half-way point. (most of the time she gave it to me, only once did I stumble upon the right planet). It's the biggest of the "minor" quests IMHO. Up there with Helena Blake's. Which actually seems to be an issue---a lot of people are saying that ME 2 is importing data wrong for some of the "large sidequests", and that the results of Helena Blake's quest and the whole asari consort section, are wrong. It seems to kind of ignore what you did. (that seems true at least for the consort---a message I heard on the Citadel seemed very out-of-character, but if it doesn't "count" what you did for her on ME 1, then it makes perfect sense). A lot of reports of Conrad Verner "mis-remembering" your first encounter, too. Which may actually screw up what happens with him in ME 2, as it may make a paragon solution impossible since the game seems to default that you were a renegade. Anyways---I just heard that on the 2nd run of an ME 2 character (new game+) you don't get to pick a weapon specialization again? That'd suck, as I'd like to get the AR this time around.

It moves enough to see it move in videos, and rather quickly---enough that it's impressive a surface that big can be muscled around that fast. (anyone here actually seen a Viggie fly?) Anyways---first F-15SE batches will not have canted fins. Boeing said they will be re-introduced later in the program. (though IMHO, that means it's likely we'll never see them in service)

The point of the past few posts has been discussing planes where the ENTIRE assembly pivots as a whole (thus the terms "all-moving" and "slab"). There's nothing interesting about a plane with a fixed fin and a movable rudder.

The A-5 may have the most rudder authority of anything ever...

Most planes with slab tailfins, tend not to HAVE h.stabs. (YF-23, SR-71) But for all-moving everything---the A-5 Vigilante. Actually invented the concept in jets IIRC. (the A-5 introduced a lot of things actually) (and if you simply look at an A-5, you can see how massive an all-moving fin on that thing is)

Thanks a ton for the pics.

My point is that the rachni were the biggest threat ever seen (until the reapers)---even "good" characters on your team will argue for killing them, as will Admiral Hackett IIRC. (the council will bitch you out no matter what you do, ironically). Letting the rachni live is "not a smart thing" to many people, and isn't a clear-cut "good" choice. It's technically paragon, but it could so come back to bite you, and the entire galaxy, in the ass. Even in ME 2 there's a comment or two about how one of the worst things Cerberus ever did was help with the rachni rebirth project. But with the council---there's really no reason to let them die. Doing so is just cut-and-dry evil (or at the very least, very selfish).

Few airplanes have issues with airframe damage from reverse AFAIK---the KC-135A is one of them, and that's mainly because the original engine is just so utterly insanely loud---it's raw acoustic damage, not buffeting/exhaust battering it. When the sheer noise damages a military-grade frame, you know that's a loud engine... (when an engine is in reverse, that normally bypasses many silencing features, so an engine in reverse at 70% thottle is often louder than at full takeoff) I don't know if I've ever heard anything louder than a DC-9 in full reverse... (and I've heard Harriers hover) While many planes have a 60kt limitation for reverse (don't use it below that speed, for reasons of re-ingesting their exhaust gases), plenty of planes reverse all the time. See the DC-9 family, 727, and C-17. 757 can too, but it's VERY rare. Main reason the 757 (and other airliners) don't is due to likelihood of sucking up ramp people and baggage carts with their low-mounted engines, more than any engine operation limits. (and terminal/gate noise) Most airliners can go to a pretty high throttle setting in reverse, but I don't think any hit more than 95%. 70% is on the low end IIRC. 80-90 is probably the majority. As for speed of reversing---clamshell/buckets are the fastest, then petals, then target, and lastly sleeve. I think the main issue is one schizo mentioned---reversers simply aren't that effective. Many are as low as 10% of the equivalent forward-thrust rating. So you might need a 10:1 thrust ratio just to make it work at all, much less have good acceleration.

IIRC from the last time that group had a display, they're all just really good, modified Hasegawa kits.

Spoilers for the next big DLC, possibly, but seems likely:

You mean like THIS? http://img.moronail.net/img/1/0/2010.jpg

I only saw the movie once, but I think maybe the zap-field was above the water, and he got zapped before he hit the water. Either way, definitely zapped by beam/arc/ray of insta-death-zapping.

That wasn't water. More like an electric plasma-nanite field, which was shown previously to dissolve anything that touched it, IIRC.