David Hingtgen

JB0---about PS2 analog button sensitivity. I went from a launch PS2 to a Slim PS2 and couldn't STAND the newer-production PS2 pad. Buttons just suck compared to the original, and it feels cheaper/flimsy overall. I searched all around until I found a Toys R Us that still had original PS2 controllers, and bought one. It's worth hunting for. Check Toys R Us, or maybe Kaybee or K-Mart, or any other store that keeps ancient stock. The key thing to look for is (asides from a layer of dust on the package) is for it to NOT say what color the controller is. The newer ones say black (or charcoal or graphite or whatever they call it) because there are different colors. The early ones (which are slightly heavier, but so much more responsive and better feeling) don't say anything about color on the package because they're so old there was no alternate color. Also, if you look at the back the packaging is slightly different. If not for the PS3 coming within a year I'd probably have bought yet another spare, launch-day PS2 pad by now.

I too have heard good things about the Logitech, but I'll probably just wait for their version of the PS3 pad at this point. Gamecube: as uncomfortable as the DC and Xbox S. There's a big difference between "controllability" and "comfort". Saturn and PS2 are the most comfortable. For me, the DC and GC are the worst. My middle fingers always end up pressed against the edges of the shoulder button housings. Xbox S better but not a lot. The PS2 is way better in that regard in that my middle fingers are UNDER the shoulder housings, not behind (XB s) or between (GC, DC). Saturn was the best, it didn't HAVE shoulder button housings. Just a mound where the cord attached PS--I HATE VIBRATION. With a passion. Also, I hate heavy controllers. If I could, I *so* would buy a new PS2 or XB controller that couldn't vibrate, because that'd save a lot of weight. I'd remove the motors from my current controllers if I knew it wouldn't mess up the games (constantly searching for input or a signal to them or something). How's the WEIGHT on the Logitech PS2? If it's anywhere near a PSX DualShock it's way too heavy.

Best pad ever: Early US version of the Saturn's. I compare all others to it. Strange how sucky the DC's is, especially compared to the NiGHTS controller, which it evolved from. A key feature of the Saturn pad is the shoulder buttons are not really separate buttons--they are simply the edge of the controller. Kind of like how an SNES's wrapped around the edge, you could hit them at many angles. But even better. Now, I like the Dual Shock 2 more than most, but I simply am not COMFORTABLE using all 4 shoulder buttons. L1/R1 are the primary ones, and I'm not too fond of ever using L2/R2 for anything frequent/precise. So yes they work for rudders, but not much else. I sure wouldn't ever want them linked to jump or shoot or anything else that requires dexterity/timing. If you ever see me online (AC6 hopefully), it's clear I favor certain throttle/rudder combinations, due to shoulder button layout. Note to self: Find a 360 by June. The problem with 6 buttons is alignment. While the Saturn's rocks, you don't want to play MegaMan X4 on it, because special weapon and dash are not equidistant from jump, and buster shot is WAY out there. No way around it. Now, the real purpose and specialty of the Saturn is Capcom and SNK 2D fighters, so 6-buttons rock at that. You've gotta have "2 rows of 3" for fighting games, but I can't help but think either a pentagon (with the 6th button in the middle) or a hexagon might be superior to the 4-button diamond. Button combos: 4-button diamond can do square+X very easily and instantly, but then again, triangle+X or square+circle are impossible without moving your entire hand just to hit them. 6 buttons in 2 rows can do many combos easily: A+B A+X B+C B+Y C+Z X+Y Y+Z But in summary---there's still no perfect button layout. 4 shoulder buttons are uncomfortable and awkward, and 6-button layouts often have problems with how many games have 4 primary functions---6 buttons are good for tapping in sequence, but it's impossible to your thumb in the middle and have easy, rapid access to all 6---you'll always favor a group of 3 in triangle formation. (At least that's what happens on a Saturn pad playing action games) I think 4+4 would work best if L2/R2 could be redesigned. Honestly I'd like them smaller, and maybe angled back more. Or maybe move them out or in. Anywhere but "right behind L1/R1". PS---I rarely have issues with pause, it's select that's the problem. Put start and select by each other, say right above and below the current pause location on the PS2. Kudos to anyone who actually reads all that.

I like this pic better, it's way closer, you can tell the individual markings: http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/pho...N-1331S-167.jpg The upper-left 4 are the showbirds. Upper left is VF-31 CAG, upper right is VF-213 CAG, lower left is VF-213 CO, and lower right is VF-31 CO. Overall, VF-31's planes are leading VF-213.

The new 1/32 jets just rock, having one of them is far better than having a bunch of 1/72 or 1/48 ones. You get a big smile just opening and seeing all that plastic, and the 40 page manual. And the screwdriver included. It's one of those things that just having it is as good as actually using/building. If there's ever a new 1/32 F-14, Skull Leader and I are financially doomed. 1/24 is becoming more popular for props, but almost unheard of for jets---only 1/24 jet I know is the Airfix Sea Harrier, and that's partly because the Harrier is tiny. Still waiting for a 1/32 F-8, that is IMHO the most likely for the next 1/32 jet. (What with the new 1/48 and 1/72 of it, and the new 1/32 A-7)

No more space in the stash for new kits. No more room on the shelves for the half-done kits I'm working on. (That F-15E's been 70% done for a half-year now, it currently sits on the floor next to my stereo--some day I'll feel like doing the engines, gear, weapons, and canopy) No more room under the bed or couch for the "reserve" stash. So what do I do? Buy the biggest new model I can! It's the American way. (VF-1 for scale)

Tamiya flat can flatten almost anything, but I'd try Testor's acryl stuff first--I've read a few issues about mixing Tamiya and Future directly. I've disliked every "not normal model cement" I've ever tried for a canopy. They all seem to dissolve readily in water. Not good when trying to decal pilot's names by the canopy! I've had more than one "glued" canopy come off during decaling. I just use normal glue, very carefully and in small amounts.

Future can, and is, used for everything. The following procedure is not at all uncommon: Primer. Color. Future to smooth surface for decals. Cut decal from sheet, DUNK DECAL IN FUTURE USING FUTURE AS A WATER AND DECAL SET SUBSTITUTE, apply. Future to seal decals. Weather. Future to seal weathering. Flattened Future for final finish. I have yet to use Future instead of Micro-Set etc, but plenty of people like it and say it prevents silvering better than anything else.

I still have to get Kingdom Come. Side note: One of the best things about Barnes & Noble is their large selection of TPB/Graphic Novels. And they often have their own edition of popular ones, which are very cheap.

According to Magic Box, VP Lenneth and VP Silmeria have been registered as trademarks by SQ-Enix in the US. That's basically confirmation of US releases.

Well this is interesting: http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...ws/030606p1.xml The parts for the 3rd XB-70 Valkyrie were assembled and converted as a launch platform for satellites?

True, but the default/standard/demo colors from Lambo are the lime and pumpkin. They are the majority of colors sent to dealers, etc. THAT is strange.

Basically: The key difference between the J and the E was that the J had all the changes made to the E(FN). The E(FN) is the French Crusader. It has double-hinged leading edge flaps, larger stabs, and blown flaps to reduce its approach speed. This was needed for France's smaller carriers. (And the F-8 was never an easy plane to land on a carrier). However, all those changes added weight, and the blown flaps sucked power and response time straight from the engine when it was most needed. So it actually handled worse, even if it did come in slower. The US Navy later made some adjustments and added more powerful engines, but it pretty much cancelled out all the approach improvements---so like often happens, they spent a lot of time and money just to get the J back to how it was like before it was converted! The F-8H was the upgraded D. The D is THE fastest and best-performing of the original Crusaders, period. No others come close. Now, the later H's got even more powerful engines than most J's and didn't have the weight or drag of E/J. I think the H might even be able to outrun the D (same airframe plus more power=faster), but I've never read anything about its performance. Basically: The H is the upgraded version of the best-performing Crusader (the D), while the J is the heavier, less responsive version of the E. The J may be more technologically advanced and "survivable", but not better or "more fun" for a pilot. Think about the standard F-15E---sure it's a far more advanced, multirole, more useful plane compared to the F-15C, but for sheer agility and speed the F-15C will beat it, even if the E is stripped down. I think most pilots would rather fly around in a C than an E. A note he had at the end said that the last F-8 squadron utterly refused to take freshly-converted J's, and wanted the older H's retired from a previous squadron.

I'd just plain vote for the F-8. Why? Its model designator is F, not A. Plus it has an afterburner. And most important of all, it looks way cooler. F vs A explanation: while many an "F" plane has become a great attacker (or only really is an attacker) I have yet to hear of an "A" plane doing well in air combat. PS---I was just posting with an F-8 pilot in another forum and he said the F-8H was hands-down the best version, especially compared to the J. Quote: "J for junk, H for hotrod".

That powder-blue Gallardo is in Road and Track. I swear everyone at Lambo went color blind over the past few years. Metallic lime green. Pearl burnt orange. Now pastel blue. What happened to basic sports car colors? Diablos had so many neat shades of blue---both metallic and non. And titanium, and anthracite grey, and other cool colors. But the current ones seem only to be available in colors that don't look good on the cars. There's like one shade of blue that's decent, but it's almost the same as GM Superior Blue.

Isn't there a joke about the percentage of new Lambos owned by rappers? I don't actually recall seeing anybody else own one... I'll admit I've always wondered what a chrome sports car would look like. I like the overall look, but it's just TOO shiny. I think "super-smooth" (as in fine-grained) silver would look nice. Just so long as it's not actually reflective like a mirror. Most silver paint is just so grainy, like glitter. This is an issue for models, as normal silver paint on a model can often look like you literally coated it in glitter. It's all about how finely ground the metal flakes are.

VFA-154's new CAG scheme: Much better. It's BLACK and red now, instead of grey and red. EDIT. Arrrgh, I really really really truly verily hate Invision's embedded auto-replace feature. It's screwing up the link. Same reason we keep getting F-14D® in our posts--it auto-replaces our typing into the registered trademark sign, and it's doing the same thing to the URL I'm linking to. Here's link that this forum doesn't change half the letters in the URL of: http://www.myaviation.net/search/photo_sea...php?id=00550791 Then just click on "165910" in the description to get all the other pics of it.

I'd pin this if I could, but being powerless and all... Anyways---I have actually found Testor's metalizers in the bottles to be capable of some neat effects when brushed. Burnt iron especially---I'm not the only one who found that brushing it over something will give a nice subtle effect. Just stir it like crazy and take advantage of how sheer it is. Very good for streaks/stains in an afterburner/exhaust--especially all those ones with ceramic white nozzle interiors. Though valks have such unusual nozzles compared to most planes. Alclad however, is ONLY airbrushable. (Is that a word?) And I've GOT to get a YF-19 kit someday. I just barely missed out at BigBadToyStore--might order straight from HLJ.

A big part of not producing unique designs is expense. The cost of designing planes is going up far faster than any nation's economy. In WW2 almost every nation could design and build their own new planes in a year. Nowadays, France can barely afford a new plane a decade, it takes the UK plus 2 or 3 other nations to fund a new Euro-plane (Tornado and Typhoon), and the US isn't doing much better. It's always been considered amazing how Sweden can design such top-quality planes on a tiny (for aircraft design) budget/economy. Maybe SAAB employees are just really motivated... It's a lot cheaper for Japan to buy other nation's planes, like lots of nations do. The best stuff IS for sale, generally.

I'm in the category of "pick up a few series semi-often for nostalgia, whenever they seem decent again" (like UXM) but generally wait for the TPB for anything good/famous/popular. Waste of time and money to hunt down and buy the first 3 issues, then find out the final 5 suck as you go on. I bought the entire No Man's Land arc a year after it was finished and liked it quite a bit. Not all of it, but a lot easier than buying dozens of comics and trying to figure out what happens when. Also saves the trouble of hunting down specific issues--I want to read JUSTICE, but only found issue 2. Passed on it because I didn't want to miss the beginning. Then they got in issue 1 and 3! But were sold out of issue 2. Now, you guessed it, they got in more copies of issue 2, but sold out of 1 and 3 again. I'm just going to wait and get the trade. Unless of course, it all falls apart at the end and people are disgusted. (Though I doubt that for this series)

That's what the constitution says, but the F-2 and F-15J are equal to, and in some ways superior, to the US versions. They retain full long-range strike capability and long-range missiles, mid-air refueling, and all sorts of other features that wouldn't be needed for self defense, THAT ARE OFTEN DELETED FOR OTHER NATIONS. Basically, many export versions of US planes are stripped down, especially in regards to anything that helps with long-range strikes (mid-air refueling, extra fuel tanks, long-range radar, etc). But not for Japan. It's a big joke for aviation enthusiasts about the "Self Defense" part of Japan's Air Force/airplanes. It's as utterly capable of sending planes far away and striking as the USAF. And they're looking at building small carriers, possibly even ones capable of taking JSF's. Carriers are for power projection, not self-defense. PS--for Graham: I don't know what the official number is, but the F-2 does cost MUCH more than a regular F-16. Because the only thing more expensive than designing a new plane, is trying to re-design an existing one. Also, they wanted to use Japanese electronics--and they really don't mesh well with proprietary US avionics. The F-16 is designed for very specific electronics, and to try to redesign the entire avionics suite costs as much as the plane itself. They did it, but it delayed the program by years and made the plane cost several times more than it should have.

The F-2 doesn't just resemble an F-16, it IS an F-16, with a few changes for the Japanese market. (Wings 25% larger all around, enhanced anti-ship capability, and 1 extra fuselage bay ahead of the fin) It's built under license from Lockheed-Martin, and the engines come straight from the US. Little different from the F-15J---built in Japan, but under license from MDC with engines from the US. The F-16E/F is also basically a custom modification of the design for the UAE, only it's still built in the US. Japan hasn't done an original design since the NAMC Y-11 I think. (A 1960's turboprop airliner)

Gemini just posted pics of their 1/72 Warbirds. http://www.geminijets.com/aces/ PS---with my forum settings this is page 79 of the thread.

Arrgh! MW went down for like 10 mins the MOMENT I clicked to reply, had a nice long reply typed out. Short version of what I said: Plastic kits are (illegally) copied all the time. Airliners to ships to fighter jets. Very easy to spot. Decals get copied too, errors and all. Dragon can legally copy Hasegawa AFAIK, though they seemed to have copied the horrible Italeria Super Hornet instead of Hasegawa's. They copied the Hasegawa Super Hornet WEAPONS though. (the only real errors in the Hase kit and that's the parts they copied) But most everything else is unauthorized copying. Even plastic kits are often copies of other kits too! Not directly when there's a scale change usually, just "it's very obvious they had this kit sitting right next to them and were very "inspired" by it". And Hasegawa is THE source for copying anything. Strangely, that should imply high accuracy, but it seems copiers have the amazing ability to emphasize errors and minimize accuracies. The Dragon F-15 I have is this one: http://www.flyingmule.com/products/DM-50148 It is the most accurate of Dragon's, taking into account everything I can. However, the Witty F-15 is just as nice. For every thing the Dragon has slightly better, the Witty has something else better than Dragon. They are quite equal overall. Biggest difference really is that the Witty has fixed gear and weapons, but has working rudders, airbrake and canopy. Paint colors are better than Dragon, paint quality could be a bit lower. Accuracy issues are of similar size/nature/number/magnitude. There's about 4 little things wrong on the Witty that Dragon did right, and about 4 little things wrong on the Dragon that Witty did right. http://www.flyingmule.com/products/WT-WTW72005-1 See which you want, and feel free to ask anything---I'll happily discuss the most minor of details, from tailhook fairings to stub-pylon adapters. Corgi: I have the 45 Sq. (Honington) Tornado, "Gunfighter" P-51, "Annette" F-4C, and the 899 Sq Anniversary Shar. Will pick up an F-4J when they do a scheme I like. (Well, I like the VF-74 one but they screwed the markings up a lot IMHO, despite researching the real thing at their local museum in the UK--amazing). PS--anything Corgi calls an F-4B or F-4N isn't a B or N at all. But their F-4C, D, and J are quite nice.

Most everyone would point you to this: http://www.swannysmodels.com/TheCompleteFuture.html And actually he says go for heavier coats. Makes sense, since for canopies you literally dunk it and let the excess pour off, and that makes it glass-smooth.