David Hingtgen

I just bought CV: Dawn of Sorrow, and I don't even have a DS yet. Waiting for DS Lite.

Sundown--thank you, that is one of the things I was really wondering about---fit/finish. The 1/60's, while a lot better than the M Plus valks, still just don't "click" together like I expect a $100 toy. My standard for big expensive transforming mecha is current MP Optimus Prime. So very 'crisp' in every way. (except the chest/windows, which I blame on being diecast---diecast adds weight, nothing more) While we're talking fit/finish--how are screws dealt with? Are there fewer, less obvious, those weird "rubbery round caps with a hexagonal top"? I haven't really noticed any in the pics. Exo--ack, see, I'm really not up on the newest Yamatos. Of course, now that means if I got a VF-0 it wouldn't be in scale with the 1/48's... Argh! Now that I think about it, if they make a big VF-0 in 1/60, they probably wouldn't do a -19 or -21 in 1/48 either, and those too would be 1/60... (As a diecast plane collector, I try very hard to keep consistent scales) And I still utterly plan to wait for a VF-0D. I'm currently leaning towards a 48 Milia...

Even by modern standards, the Concorde's wing is complex, advanced, and unique. It's a delta, but far different than any other delta AFAIK. What other plane can supercruise at Mach 2 for hours on end? (Well, the SR-71, but that's REALLY high-tech---the Concorde can be serviced and maintained like any other plane, and doesn't need a literal army of people to prep it) I'm going to have to go re-read my Concorde book now...

Thanks much for the replies so far. I did see(just today) that Neova had Milia in stock, though I am also considering waiting to see if a reissue comes out----it'll be cheaper then and I'll have more money. Then again, it could be forever or never till a reissue Milia comes. Didn't find the "recommend a valk" thread before, thanks. PS--you know, one of the first thoughts I had being made a mini-mod of this forum was "but I don't have a 1/48, and that's all they talk about nowadays and I'm not up on them". PPS--reading that thread (sad that I missed it in my "own" forum) yellowing comes up a lot. My 1/60 Roy isn't yellow in the slightest and he's been out of the box for years now---is it a 1/48 issue specifically? Also "crooked skulls" DOES ring a bell---has it ever been fixed? I spent a LONG time trying to get the perfect skull alignment on my 1/60 Roy's stickers, and crooked skulls would bug the heck out of me. PPPS---what exactly is printed on the 1/48's? I plan to use Anasazi's decals anyways, but want to know what's already there. Finally---how much are used but very nice 1/60's worth nowadays? Combined with selling my VF-11 FP and a slightly damaged YF-21 FP I could probably get most of the cash needed.

From the perspective of someone who sees a 1/48 as a pretty major purchase not taken lightly: Having watched M Plus, DYRL, and M Zero (for the first time) this week I feel the need for more valks. Since 1/48 will definitely be the new standard scale (with the VF-0 coming, and if we ever get new M Plus toys they'll likely be that too) I'm thinking about getting a 1/48 VF-1, which I still don't have. Reading everything I could on this forum still didn't help much with my decision, so I'll ask people here. My comments/questions/concerns: My fave schemes are Milia's -1J and Roy's -1S. I have both in 1/60. Along those lines, I keep debating---it's hard for me to justify buying something I already have in a sense, but I also wouldn't really want to spend that kind of money on anything BUT my fave scheme. I've been considering DYRL Hikaru's -1S, as I do like that scheme too and it's different from what I have already---but it just takes me back to "I spent THAT kind of money on a scheme that's not a favorite"---but doing so would alleviate any sort of "wasted money" feelings I have by getting Milia or Roy's in 1/48. I'm the kind of person that really hates having anything less than the best version of anything, but also the person who hates even more buying something then having to spend even more money to buy the better version of something I already have. (Which is usually why I wait a long time before buying something---didn't work for VF-1's though) I'd appreciate posts from people who bought the 1/48 versions of 1/60 that they already had. Would appreciate comments from those that don't buy a lot of valks. (if you bought every 1/60 valk then every 1/48, I can probably guess what your comments are--you also have far more money for valks than me). But if you only had 1 or 2 in 1/60, and then bought them again in 1/48, I'd appreciate comments/comparisons--mainly if you thought it was that much better than a 1/48, that you felt it was worth the upgrade. Would especially like a 1/60 to 1/48 Milia photo comparison---I can only ever find the default factory sample photos of the 1/48 Milia. Basically I'm just trying to figure out whether buying a 1/48 Milia is worth it, compared to my 1/60 Milia. And if I were to get a 1/48, would I be better off getting something "new" I don't have at all (a Hikaru) or my fave scheme again that I already have in 1/60. (Milia) Then I get into "if I get Milia in 48, would I be satisfied, or would I have to get Roy's too? Because if I "upgrade" Milia to 48 then I almost certainly have to do Roy's too. And then I couldn't afford an Xbox 360... "Typing out loud" often helps me think, so even if no one replies it'll probably help me decide.

From what I understand, for takeoff, a Concorde pumps fuel aft so that it's tail heavy. The elevons compensate by giving a nose-down command. This positions them trailing edge down a bit, acting like normal flaps. But it (presumably) must raise them to pitch up to actually takeoff, so that extra lift would be lost the moment it actually takes off.

Heh heh--I just watched it for the first time tonight, too! And only an hour later. I still want a VF-0D toy, not an S. My next big valk purchase will be whatever happens first in the next few months: 1. Yamato announces VF-0D 2. Yamato announces 1/48 Milia reissue. (You can still find her, but I'm not paying over 200 bucks for something I already have in 1/60) Also having just watched DYRL to get in a Macrossy mood before watching Zero, I'm now thinking I need a DRYL Hikaru 1S...

Skirt armor? Partially, but I personally find much of the legs to be more Gundamesque than he was animated. Check the feet and ankles, and all the pistons and joints. A minor leg thing that REALLY irks me are the fuel tanks. They're angled. Look at them from above. They're only attached straight (i.e. correctly) for that brief moment that you press them in to unlock the legs. It's almost like the whole mechanism was designed backwards. They should be straight 99% of the time, and briefly angled to unlock the legs. I'm glad you brought up the flip-out fists like BW TM1 OP. If you've followed my posts at TFW2005 I expect to see that transformation element used for MP SS, but for the engine nozzles. MP SS working features: (btw, it'd be about 32 inches long at 1/24 scale) I doubt a working airbrake, due to the likely transformation scheme. Either the head or canopy are likely to pass through the area. (On the G1 the airbrake is half on each arm) I bet the intakes move! If you notice, seekers in robot mode are almost always drawn with the intakes "opposite" of jet mode. The straight part is angled and the angled part is straight. (They are also fond of making the straight part curved). But anyways, that is actually easily accomodated by the real F-15's ability to change the angle of its intakes----all they have to do is like the real thing, and you can get that intake angle change in robot mode. The drawing shows the wheels turning for retraction, but they show that for the nosewheel--which doesn't on the real thing. Either they've got it backwards, or they are turning the nosewheel to allow a smaller, more shallow gear bay. I'm very curious about how they'll do the legs, mainly because there's a lot of colors and bits and angles in robot mode, but it's smooth and featureless on the real F-15. I expect LOTS of flipping panels. Also a lot of that area is taken up by the main gear bays. I wouldn't be surprised if we get accurate nosegear, but almost G1-style main wheels. Though I can certainly imagine how they could do it "right", mainly by splitting the legs into front/rear halves, and lots of 180 twists. Moving flaps/ailerons are pretty much a given, moving stabs are likely needed for the transformation itself (and exist on the G1 toy), moving rudders would be easy to do. Likely--opening radome with radar---the nosecone's already almost certain to be a separate part. Though they may need the space for the radar instead for a complex folding mechanism/hinges, as I expect the nose to end up in the "spine" of the robot. Likely--opening canopy. (And expected, since the G1 could do it) Who should the pilot be?

Weight in the forward fuselage is VERY important. As I posted in another thread, the difference between an F-16 being stable or unstable can be changed with a few hundred pounds up front. Or moving the center of lift by 8 inches. So how can planes carry thousands of pounds of bombs with no problem? Because they're right over the center of gravity. They may be spread left/right, but the plane's center of gravity remains roughly the same. Center of lift/center of pressure/center of gravity is everything for basic plane stability. And delta-winged planes change everything. (To the point that I still don't know how a delta-winged plane controls pitch with elevons) If anyone can explain, here's my question: To pitch up, a delta-winged plane deflects the elevons up. That should basically be the same as a normal plane deflecting an aileron up. Trailing edge up=loss of lift. So how does this make a plane pitch up? My rough guess is that the loss of lift somehow affects the center of lift, to the point that the aircraft pitches up. Also, I know the Concorde messes with its center of gravity for takeoff, to force the elevons to deflect downwards like flaps to compensate, for extra lift---but then wouldn't deflecting them up at rotation cause that lift to be lost, defeating the purpose at the most needed point? The Concorde has a reflexed airfoil, which as I understand changes the relationship betweeen center of pressure and center of lift compared to other wings---is that part of it? (I tend to want to truly understand how planes fly, in most every aspect)

IMHO most of those Energon/Armada etc designs are almost "SD" versions of those vehicles. Yes, Cybertron Thundercracker looks like a Super Flanker. But he's not a Flanker. He's a kiddie-fied Flanker. It's very much like the difference between a diecast model Honda S2000, and a BitCharg/Zip-Zap Honda S2000. Or if you know what they are, egg planes and model planes. Secondary rant: Gimmicks are also messing up the vehicle-modes. Working this, firing that. Plus current safety laws make all those things big and oversized. But that should be a different discussion. My comment about Kawamori was purely about planes. Kawamori makes sleek, cool transforming planes. Takara makes "shuttle blobs with stubby wings". MP Prime's truck mode is purely because they wanted robot mode to look a certain way--especially the legs. Seriously, Prime has always possibly the easiest to do in real life, most plausible/perfect Transformation out there. Stand up, swing out arms, flip up head. His robot mode is a truck with legs. He could have been the world's best diecast model Freightliner done to date---that also happened to transform. But they wanted "Gundam Prime", and so truck mode suffered to make that happen.

I know there's something missing in the Revell F-14D kit that makes it not quite a D, but I can never remember what--they change the parts in every boxing. I think it's the engine fairings (and perhaps shrouds too) for that one, and the cockpit or seats. Only F-14D's "accurate enough for the F-14-loving nitpickers" are the Hase kits. Revell's the best of the rest though, as D's go. BTW----I just got my Hase YF-19 kit.

The adaptive AI could easily only be in the final version. They chop out a lot of "invisible" stuff for demos. You'll note that like in AC5, the demo has no "follow the missile" camera view, despite being in the full game. Demos are also often a lot easier than the final game. (They want people to play and have fun, not think the game is hard and frustrating) Or, maybe it only takes effect after each mission, as it reviews and updates. (of course, didn't Virtua Fighter 4 have "instant" adaptation?)

They're just going to have all their ships stay real close to US battlegroups (or RAF bases on the coast) until they get JSF's.

Tried and true soft-edge method: Cut out the shapes you need on thin cardboard, thick paper, etc. Place them on the model, but loosely. Like, make a loop of tape, or several layers of tape, underneath the mask itself. Or, curl the edge of the mask up a bit. This will allow just a bit of "controlled overspray" under the edge of the mask giving a soft, feathered edge. The further the mask sits above the surface, the wider the overspray pattern and the softer the edge. This method is for those of us who can't freehand camo yet.

Astrotrain is shuttle-esque, not a shuttle. He's no more realistic in vehicle mode than G1 Hotrod. Unless it looks just like this, it's not a shuttle:

Anyone seen the fan retouched+colored photos? Robot mode looks better, but shuttle mode REALLY looks like "shuttle with a train on the wings". G1 Astrotrain---95% train parts in train mode, 95% shuttle parts in shuttle mode. This new one has like 40% train parts in shuttle mode, and 40% shuttle parts in train mode. I can't help but think "train-shaped snake" in train mode. Actually you know---with a bullet-train nose and windshield shaped like that, why didn't they just use the same nose and cockpit in both vehicle modes? Would have solved a lot of issues. Then you wouldn't have train noses on the shuttle wings, nor a shuttle nose making the rear of the train arch up. And there'd be no arm kibble. That however has been the trend in TF's for many years. Better robots at the severe expense of alt mode, ESPECIALLY for real-life vehicles. Just makes me appreciate Kawamori all the more. While his planes are fake, they are very nice and plausible, and not big round fat cargo planes which carry 3/4 of the robot inside the cargo bay, which is all Hasbro/Takara seem to be able to design any more.

The stand inserts into the engine nozzles, I think the top part of each stand is unique to each type of plane to fit.

Yeah, I want to try that mission with Sparrows or AMRAAMs. Normal sidewinders were about as likely to hit a Schnee F-14 as they were that final cruise missile in the "Broken Arrows" mission. AIM-9X was too easy (like 30 secs and they're all toast, even my wingman got one), AIM-9M too hard.

Not often that I make such strong comments about a TF, but: it's crap IMHO. Fake shuttle that looks like the fakey recent Jetfires, and a fakey generic fake bullet train. G1 was much better---it was NASA's orbiter, and a REAL locomotive. And it looked far better in both vehicle modes. (Because it was real). Have I ever mentioned how much I hate fake vehicles for TF's? If they make neo-Sideswipe some concept car and neo-Starscream some fake space-plane, the whole line will suck IMHO.

****! Wrong recent Su-27 link. Corrected in above post.

I post that you can go play AC Zero, and no one cares???

This link is to the sample of Witty's Su-27, but at the bottom are several pics showing the Witty stand: http://www.merit-intl.com/month/wty-72014.htm If they just correct the colors on the final version, I am so buying that Flanker. But as it is the colors are far too pale. Ukranian splinter camo is rich blues and medium grey, and the stripes are royal blue and gold, not flourescent. The real thing for comparison: http://www.epozar.com/militaria/brno/su27.html

Neither one's a redhead, but more women in armor is always good: http://www.rpgamer.com/games/valkyrie/valk...anda031506.html

Diecast time again. Forces of Valor's new VF-154 F-14A: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ak2k-wd/f-14.html Looks really nice, almost certainly the best diecast F-14 out there. Panel lines are rather deeply engraved and inked though, but not nearly like earlier FoV stuff was. Now just to wait for Witty's VF-213 F-14D and see what they do...

While the SXRD sets do look great in store from what I've seen, I have read about "green spots" when the set first comes on. Also, the minimum size/cost on those is huge. I was at BestBuy today (had a gift card), and noticed several CRT HDTV's I hadn't seen before. Samsung and Toshiba, 26in I think, both $550. The Samsung was a slimline, box said 72 pounds. Wall mount is not really an option---my bedroom is LINED with shelves to hold all my airplane books and airplane models. The ONLY place for a TV is near my bed. I could wall-mount a small LCD beyond the foot of the bed, but at that point it'd be like a 23in TV, 10 feet away. Getting a new stand is certainly an option, there's no real reason to keep the current one other than it's pefectly positioned for how I play. (it's on a turntable so I can move it a few degrees left/right for where I'm sitting on the bed) So---while $200 to 300 for a new standard TV with component would offer only minimal improvements, 550 would get me a slim 4:3 CRT HDTV with HDMI. No 720p etc, but would have awesome black/response/viewing angle. Also, can't CRT's deal easily with almost any resolution? Basically I think it could be a nice place-holder until plasma or LCD or something becomes nicer and more affordable. $1000 is too much at this point, so all the nice 23-26in LCD's are out of my range. My questions for the videophiles here----any comments on the $500-600 CRT HDTV's out there now? I believe the Toshiba was the 26H85 or something along those lines. (Surprisingly SEARS had a bunch of CRT HDTV's this Xmas, but they were mostly 30 to 36in---too big and heavy and expensive for a bedside) Somewhat related question---people often go on about so many 23-26in LCD's being native 720p and thus perfect for X360's (and many demo 360's are hooked up to that)---but I see so many that are actually 768 pixels, advertised as native 720. How does that work? PS---I measured my actual "eyeball to screen" distance for my most common game-playing/dvd-watching position. Right about 48 inches. That's with the current stand and location. I could move the TV another foot back if needed, though I'd much rather keep it where it is. (All the cables, from every game/stereo/dvd runs through that area, and many systems have maxed out their power cable length and can't really be moved around much) Maybe if I got a stand that I could run the cables THROUGH instead of around... (Though that'd look really ugly, and I already have an "ugly" cable mess)