David Hingtgen

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)

Best HUD out now for a car is the new Vette's. PS--polarized sunglasses kill a HUD's image (as well as LCD). Basically, the image on a HUD and the angle that sunglasses polarize at are the same. It's been known for years, but there's never been a change. Tilting either 45 degrees makes everything ok, but no manufacturer seems willing to change anything. Lenscrafters said they had tried a sunglass lens 90 degrees "off" (which works perfectly with a HUD) but said it didn't work well as a sunglass then----but I don't really believe that because I can tilt my sunglasses 90 degrees and there's no difference at all. Talking to yet another guy, the polarization seems to be set the way it is due to the inherent widescreen view humans have, plus that fact that so much glare comes from horizontal surfaces (water, snow, concrete) rather than vertical. That could be true, so then why not change how HUD's are projected? They tend to be typically square anyways, there's no preference for vertical vs horizontal. I turn my HUD up to max when wearing my polarized sunglasses, even then I can barely see it--I hate having to actually use my speedometer. Of course, the simple and most obvious solution would simply be to let us turn the HUD's brightness WAY up, that'd solve any visibility problem with any sort of sunglasses, and probably is the cheapest solution.

I fully plan for my first Wii experience to be playing Super Mario World with my SNES-style gamepad hooked up through the Wii's GC controller port.

VFA-102's own site is down, and there's surprisingly few (and none good) at the Navy's site. Here's a few I have.

The gaps on the sides of the intakes? It's partly because it's a resin prototype, but mostly mis-transformed. Check all the other pics---most of the time they fit nice and tight, but a few times (like that) they're really off. The plastic one will likely "click" together better, and we won't mistransform it. You rarely see a "correct" transformation in official photos.

e_jacob--no, that's a painted resin prototype, the same one from 2 weeks ago, just more pics from that photoshoot. Those pics could be months old, only just now being released. The pics on the first page of the thread are actually the most recent version of the mold, and closer to the final product.

See, I want the "just took on the fleet" look----and as I commented earlier, you never see "dirty" red planes--they're all shiny clean demos. And I get the impression Milia's plane was probably never shiny to start with---I think it should be red, but flat red. VFA-102's CAG plane is currently about half red, but they painted it glossy to start with---quite rare. It's stayed that way for a while, it might actually get a chance to weather decently. I might have to wait until that plane gets older, for a reference to weather my Milia! However, it's the 50th Ann. scheme, so they might only leave it painted like that for a year.