David Hingtgen

I check the Samsung thread at AVS daily, because the 3253H is currently #1 on my list of TV's. It SEEMS that Oct. and later builds have new boards and there are no problems (most problems are trying to fix older boards with new firmware--which helps but doesn't totally eliminate the problems). But I am still waiting for at least one person to say "I have a 3253H built in October, that I play my 360 on using 720p over component and I have no problems at all". There's people with new 3253H's, people with 360's, and people using 720p over component---but none with that exact combo that I've seen. Because a 360 doing 720p over HDMI is a different issue--HDMI is better than component, when it comes to tearing on a Samsung. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread....105&page=87 Sony S3000 is probably #2 choice. They have no real issues, just high odds of clouding and/or buzzing.

Yes, Mission 9 with RCL's is super-easy, especially with the A-10 and it's huge load of them. (Su-33 has very few of them, Typhoon has a few more) It's not so much how many it has total, but how many rockets per salvo. I made my "attacker medal" run also my "no damage" run. Not TOO hard, though mission 12 and 13 took a bunch of tries. Tornado's your best bet IMHO, but a Strigon or Typhoon would ALWAYS get just one little bullet in you...

Very true. Mustangs are ricey now, and the new KITT is among the riciest cars I've ever seen. It should be in The Fast and the Furious, not Knight Rider. And going with that--frankly, the original KITT wasn't a muscle car (again, they died in the 70's). It was a Trans Am. A sleek, slick, black Trans Am. Not muscley. The only new cars which could truly be muscle cars are the new Camaro, or the new Challenger. (New Challenger rocks--I'm a huge F-body fan, but that Challenger is the first "retro" car ever that actually looks how a retro car should---it's so "musclecar-esque" that it looks 10x more like a Charger than the new Charger does) The new KITT would be better served as a Vette (or heck, Porsche) so as to be SLEEK. It's Hollywood as always---they tried to latch on to a feature to explain its success, but picked the wrong element and grossly exaggerated it.

But Godzilla's breath can burn through anything in the way, thus creating line of sight. If a building's blocking his view--it won't be for long.

Umm, I was just saying that topic has already been discussed here. What part of my post made you think I was being a jerk?

You have a 64 series Sharp with banding? Hmmn. I thought it was more limited to the 62/92 range. Well, regardless, I personally saw it constantly on the 32in ones. Maybe the bigger ones handle it better.

I personally doubt we'll ever see anything with new polygons. (Which is the only thing I'd pay for). Hmmn, new team battle. But you gotta pay? C'mon, maps should be free.

Yup. Like half of Sixshot's modes. "Cybertronian tank". "Cybertronian car". "Cybertronian flying thing".

Here's the basic issues to look for of all 2007 LCD's: Sharp: horizontal banding Samsung: tearing Sony: clouding (worse on XBR's, 3000's do better)

Most F-14 fans are aware of what they did to the last F-14 ever built. I believe it has been repainted yet again. Black Aces on one side (who didn't even HAVE F-14D's) and I think the Black Lions on the other.

I want a classic Gears. Why? Because no one loves Gears.

I personally really like the Joker poster. Regardless of perspective of the background, it's a cool shot of him.

Oh, yes it can. Lots of neat features are often cut for cost/maintenance reasons in the production version.

I don't have any contacts with anybody.

Twobobs is making decals, once they're out there'll be full painting diagrams. http://twobobs.net/ Almost done: http://twobobs.net/Newsletter/48-158.jpg 32nd, 48th, and 72 scale coming.

Elmendorf already has their planes, they're just not operational yet. 90th FS.

I've looked at the 32in 1080p Sharps side-by-side to several 720p. And the difference, at arm's-length viewing distance, is ONLY noticeable with large, static text. It's less jaggy. Slightly. On angled bits, like M and W and V. Like the logo of a movie at the start. And I stare for minutes on end looking for a difference. Maybe video games (HUD/text) would show it more, but for "general images" there's not the slightest difference. I really, really tried to see a difference but couldn't. Maybe the image is 1% clearer. But it's not worth paying more and having lower quality everything else. The Samsungs just looked to have the best overall picture. "Max resolution potential" is not the end-all be-all of TV's. Same as Megapixels in a camera--it's simply the highest possible resolution, not a direct indicator of quality of the image. However, I do not know what the source was. I would guess 1080i. But if it was 720p, maybe the 1080's were simply upscaling the 720 to fit, and giving them a true 1080p source would really show the difference. Also--the 32in 1080p Sharps have banding. It's subtle, but there and all over the screen. People have commented on it, but it's the only "known flaw" in 2007 sets of all brands that I immediately noticed in stores. (Every brand has some flaw this year, but it's usually subtle and you don't notice until you've owned it a week---but I saw banding on the Sharp's in an instant). That's basically a deal-killer. If I notice it in the store, I'll REALLY notice it and be annoyed at home.

I plan on getting 32 for two very good reasons: 1. Space. 2. Cost. I cannot fit a 37, period, even if I had the money. Actually, based on distance, a 32 might actually be too big--I'm going to have to move it as far back as I can. But 30's are no longer made, and 26 is just not worth it---they cost 90% as much, yet seem to be inherently lower quality. 32 is the smallest LCD you can get that can be as high quality as the 40's/50's etc. Cost is not really THAT much of a concern--a nice 32 costs roughly a grand, or a bit lower. Yes, I could get a cheap or even decent 40 inch for that much. But I want a GOOD TV, not a BIG TV that sucks. (And I don't have room for a cheap 40in)

Mass Effect is rendered by the 360 at 720p, then upscaled by the 360 itself to 1080 if you have it set that way. I don't know of any 360 game that REALLY is 1080. I mean, MS could design the 360 to upscale it to some "superHD" spec of 2440p before it sent it over the cables to your TV, but it wouldn't actually be rendering the polys and textures like that. ME is 1080p just like Halo 3 is 1080p. The 360 will scale it however you want it, but it won't make it any prettier.

Langley's F-22's have reached FULL operational capability as of yesterday. (Means they can actually be deployed overseas) "Super Gripen" going ahead. It's going to rock. Super Hornet engine, and AESA radar. Amazingly enough, the new engine is cheaper than the current Gripen engine despite having 21% more thrust. And requires no intake changes to accomodate it. Expected to fly in 2008.

LV1 is an exact copy of one of the most well-known real low-vis schemes, which is itself very similar to the next 5 or so most common real-world low-vis schemes. It's as typical and realistic as low-vis gets. LV2 isn't even low-vis IMHO, and is only an approximation of a not-well-known semi-SEA scheme from Japan. It's camoflage, but it sure isn't low-vis.

Oh no, use afterburner. You go with the max thrust regardless of how it's achieved. Omitting afterburner is kind of like saying "this car has 200horsepower, because we're not going to count the extra 40 it gets from the supercharger, because it's sometimes bypassed and not always available"

An empty F-15C has about a 1.7 thrust-to-weight ratio. Here's a page with LOTS of weights for the F-15 variants: http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/F15.html Where are you getting 155 kn for an F-15's thrust? That's well below the lowest spec. I get 208 kn for a -220 engine. (23,400lbs x2, divided by 2.205, times 9.8, divided by 1000). Again, metric and kilograms won't calculate out nicely if you don't have the same unit of measurement. If you want a "proper" 1.7 thrust to weight ratio for an empty 15C, you need the following: 208 kn of thrust. 208,000 newtons of thrust. 12,700kg of weight. Times 9.8 to get newtons. 124,460 newtons of weight. 208,000 divided by 124,460 is 1.67. (Numbers vary depending on your source--I don't have my best F-15 book handy to get "authoritative" numbers) See, a pound of thrust is the exact same unit as a pound of weight. But a kilogram and kilonewton are not the same---you have to take into account the force of gravity. Thus, part of the reason aviation still uses English measurements. A "combat load" F-15C is right around 1, or just above it. A fully loaded F-15 can drop down to .6 (which is sad, considering some airliners hit .4)

This should be more in the FAQ, but yes, the Movie version has many new/edited scenes. But it is overall shorter, with many entire sections cut out. Basically--you have to see both versions to "get it all". Especially for the the YF-21 and Guld.

But most 360 games output 720p, so showing it on a 1080p set is kinda pointless, since it'd have to downscale everything. I'd assume scaling 1080 to 720 takes more time than scaling 720 to 768 (more pixels to deal with). More lag. Also, video games don't render "different sizes" for different resolutions. For the same 360 game, running it in 480i, and 720p, on a CRT, 720p, and 1080p set, will all have the exact same dimensions, and aspect ratio. No black bars. (unless it's a forced 16:9 game on a 4:3 set). AFAIK. PS--Ishimaru---there is almost no set currently made that has a truly native 720p resolution. The vast majority of "720p" are actually 1366x768. Yet almost all 360 games are 720p. You don't see massive amounts of posts about people complaining about scaling and incompatability of the 360 with every HDTV ever, do you? The TV's out there are really 768, and 1080. Your 360 is going to have to upscale regardless of what you buy. And personally, I'd go with the least amount of scaling.