David Hingtgen

Nobody's talking about the latest from Kutaragi----what the $600 PS3 can do with its 2 HDMI ports? You can connect *two* 1080p HDTV's side-by-side and get a super-widescreen image. Yeah. For the one guy who has two identical 1080p TV's to devote to the one or two games that might support that. Sony---pushing the limits of technology that nobody cares about.

What about wings angling down? Hmmn, you knew about this before the CAD was published, and that was June. Just how far in advance do you get stuff?

BTW--does that mean Yamato's been intentionally mis-transforming the YF-19 all this time to hide the shoulder hinge? Every one at every show and photo-shoot? Makes me wonder if they don't have a "gullet shrinking" hinge somewhere they're waiting to spring on us in fighter mode...

We've been talking about it for weeks in the main VF-0 thread: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=19101

That's been known since the first unpainted battroid pics. (moving canards). And it was also readily shown in the first post of this thread, since the individual canards were at noticeably different angles to each other in fighter mode. That's simply due to transformation, not really a feature IMHO. That'd be like listing "Z-hinged elbows"---it's there because it needs to be, not an extra gimmick. There's still 3 features to figure out. Yang/second seat is unlikely. I think the arm-mounted weapons are a good idea, but would bet they're in the FAST pack set. Also, we never see them move on screen AFAIK (we see many other parts move at some point)---they may be fixed canards which isn't that uncommon on a plane---in the YF-19 aerodynamics thread at MN, my guess for their existence would go well with them being fixed (as well as their extreme dihedral), setting up a vortex under a specific condition---very much like most airliner's dihedralled nacelle strakes. And according to the line art, they don't flip 180 for battroid mode either. (Anime magic means they don't need to when drawn--but in real-life 3D, they need to or they won't fit) Making them movable could very well be INaccurate according to on-screen info, but needed for transformation.

I plan on taking the arms apart for tweaking anyways, so I might try this. Any negatives found yet?

The neater the plane, the neater the shockwave it makes:

The Constitution-class bridge from the Mirror Universe eps in ENT was great. It was the original design, but done to current standards. Red and green and yellow displays all over, yet would look at home on a Galaxy-class. It's not the design that's dated, sheerly the materials and budget they had to work with. Makes me wonder how a "new" TOS uniform would look. Same design, just different materials, etc.

Interesting, I didn't know they had links to Trumpeter. I'm well aware of the copies of most every 1/350 and 1/400 large warship kit out there---they're everywhere nowadays. Can't blame them TOO much though---Tamiya keeps jacking up the price on theirs, even though the molds etc have been unchanged (paid off) for 20 years. No new costs, yet 20 bucks more now than 2 years ago? Little different than how Hasegawa's 1/72 F-18C costs $26 now, when it used to cost $8 WAY back in 2003. Same kit, new decals=triple the price. Constantly increasing the price of "the same old molds" won't help convince people to buy the real thing. (nor does the rationale of increasing the price to recover from lost sales) Maybe if Tamiya retooled the guns, and included say options to model the Iowa from the Missouri kit, then that'd be nice amd worth buying. Tamiya's new 1/700 Iowa is a perfect *Iowa* (I know the ship well) so they certainly have the research drawings---just make a new "USS Iowa" sprue and toss it in the Missouri kit, and sell it as the Iowa. And they could easily make a small sprue update to the New Jersey kit, to allow all 4 to be done in the modern config. A slight change to the air defense level, a few details for some radars, and a new bow gun tub. And the Tirpitz REALLY needs updating. With all the pics and info found over the years--the kit gets an "F-" in accuracy nowadays. There's massive amounts of brass out there, you need to replace almost half the superstructure to make it right. And I'm not talking small super-detailing, we're talking "not enough decks" level of errors. The sheer quality of fit of those kits is still top-notch, but they really offer little incentive to buy nowadays, compared to Trumpeter's newest ships. This kind of goes against what was said earlier---but with how much reference is out there now, a "3 view drawing" based modern warship is more accurate than 30-year-old Tamiya. (Though Trumpeter F'd up big time on their 1/700 Iowa, and I swear I'm the only one who notices---the entire forecastle has stuff over 1/2 inch off position-wise---and on a 10inch ship, that's a lot) Plus they tried to make all 4 ships--and ended up making none of them actually, despite 3 different sprues.

I just snagged Titanium Thundercracker yesterday. I was kinda disappointed to see that he comes with a booklet showing all the others--and the prototype looked so much better! Much richer blue, and black instead of grey. And longer guns. Black is an important color for Thundercracker, more than most any other TF. For every spot where Skywarp is purple, TC is black. TC=blue and black, not blue and grey. Having black accents is as important to getting TC's scheme right as it is having purple accents on Skywarp.

As said in the description--is the nosecone of a Hikaru VF-1J and a Milia VF-1J the same exact color? I know there's various "whites" that Yamato likes to use and it's hard to know what's what without owning them all. If not---is there any 1/48 valk besides a Max or another Milia that will match the white parts of a Milia valk?

Paging Anasazi, line 1...

Not much. There's *a* wrong panel line, and the missing vents in the cockpit instrument coaming. The DACO "Uncovering the F-16" book is the ultimate reference. I'll get a link later.

Could you just draw a stick figure version? All we need is comparative head heights.

Well if there's a choice of tail markings, that wouldn't work if the rest of the plane was specifically Shin's.

Trumpeter doesn't make an Enterprise. But they do have the Nimitz. I'd be impressed if Tamiya could make the case that it's such a close copy that it infringes upon their rights, while simultaneously being a completely different ship.

Which means of course, there's a new article today: http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=13907 First flight's coming soon. And feel free to point and laugh at any ridiculous comments/comparisons in the story.

Well, the first one had the entire (heavy, diecast) wingroot supported only by a tab at the front. This one has the much lighter plastic wings supported by a tab at the front and one at the back. So hopefully the tabs will be under a lot less stress. However, the first one was "metal tabs of a metal wingroot going into metal slots"--so they were very strong. (And an absolute utter b*tch to transform---about 50% of the YF-19 transformation stress (both mine and the toy's) came from those two wingroot tabs---with the chest tabs being the other 50%) Also--looking closely at GERWALK mode pics, it looks like the new one does NOT have the forward tabs attach to the chest sides in GERWALK mode. Which makes me wonder how the wings are staying in place, with none of the tabs locked in. Very stiff wingroot-to-hip joint? Also makes me wonder how the torso stays elevated like that.

Can't be a Theodore Roosevelt class, seeing as how the Theodoore Roosevelt (CVN-71) is currently Nimitz class. Wait 40 years or so, then it'll probably be decommissioned. Anyways---nothing new from the F-35 that I've heard. Nothing new for any plane really. Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, F-22, Flankers---not a word lately that I can think of.

Neck collar/cover--a step back appearance-wise, but probably 5x easier to deal with transformation-wise. Though I know the SHE version looked good in fighter mode I don't know how easy it was to transform---Graham, your opinion? I know the Yamato was rubber (as you really hard to bend and curve it to swing around 180)---did the SHE have that piece in hard resin, did it work the same way? Interesting that the head is a bit raised in GERWALK mode in every pic so far--perhaps it's needed for a good transformation? I get the impression that unlike the SHE and first Yamato, the new one has the neck cover as being the back of the neck in battroid mode, rather than being a separate collar behind the neck. With the different torso transformation, the area behind the neck is quite different, and may not even need a separate piece to fill in the gap in battroid mode.

That's what I meant about their accuracy---the quality of the actual plastic/moldings is undisputably good, but the raw shape of the parts and how they go together... And everybody has a Trumpeter kit that looks amazingly like another kit they own, just in a different scale or something. Still, they are filling a niche in a lot of things. "Hey, there's a great Hasegawa kit of the whatever in 1/48, and we've been waiting 10 years for a 1/72". Well, Trumpeter will basically copy that 1/48 kit in 1/72 like everyone wanted Hase themselves to do, change the raised panel lines to recessed, and sell a zillion. Any errors will be copied as well. But people want it, and Hase never made the 1/72 version of their own kit, so Trumpeter is happy to do it and make the money. IMHO, Trumpeter's shape accuracies are easy to explain: They will find the best 3-view drawing and treat is as gospel. And no drawing is perfect. And 3-views don't translate into 3D well. Trumpeter's P-51 is a great example. The pure side silhouette matches drawings very well. But all the curves and things you see at various angles--that's where it's really messed up. Also looks good from directly above. But I mean--a square sheet of paper and a cube and a skyscraper all look identical from directly above---just because it's right from one angle doesn't mean you got the 3D shape anywhere close. Basically---they're trying to make models of things that they don't REALLY know what they look like and their research is no more than a copy of the Squadron Signal book on the subject---nice drawings, and a few gear well detail photos. They get a good 3 view, and make a 3D model from that. And the thing is---90% of reviewers and purchasers are only going to compare to those same drawings! But anyone who's actually spent some time at an airshow walking around a real P-51, and knows the full 3D shape or simply has photos at various angles---will spot the areas that are totally wrong. Still---many "high end" manufacturers are no better. Hasegawa's new 1/48 is EXACTLY from the Squadron Signal book. Error for error. And so the Trumpeter 1/72 copy of that kit is the same. Even Tamiya's new 1/32 F-16 has flaws that are immediately visible when compared to any photo, despite them having full access to several F-16's for research and they photographed every inch. PS--most everything above can be said for Academy, too. Their 1/32 Hornet is the greatest kit I've ever owned (not built yet, will be a while) but anyone who knows will recognize it is simply the Hasegawa 1/48 scaled up, and with additional detail. Same flaws/errors/shapes...

Ah, those. Figured it had to be one or the other, guessed wrong.

Do you mean these? If so they're there, they're most visible on the back of the battroid.

Are people commenting on the photos themselves? Because I didn't take them, I meant I merely have them on my hard drive. Just wondering. There are better ones, but they are HUGE and MW's attachments are slightly wonky again.

The crotch can't look right in fighter mode without ruining battroid mode----it'd sit like a half-inch forward of the pelvis if it was curved to match the fighter mode belly. Now, I think the hinge itself could have been done better (read:smaller) but the overall shape--not much you can do without anime magic. It's very convex in one mode, very concave in the other. So it's averaged out in real-life 3D: flat. That gives "decent" in each mode. Part of it is because of the curvature caused by the gullet---a "skinny" neck would be flatter and they'd be more similar in each mode. It's clear that piece was given priority for battroid mode--since it's very visible in that mode, but about the most hidden of all areas in fighter mode--you'll only ever see it from directly below. Though I do plan to see what could be done when I get mine---but I suspect a good fighter mode shape for that piece may make a very bad battroid. Oh, one last thing: it's also the connector for the stand--check the pics in the first post. Maybe a non-connector-compatible piece could look better. (Owning no stands, it's not a concern for me to connect to it)