David Hingtgen

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)

Current OPM has a playable demo, 2 missions, F-15C and F-18C available. Review: Graphically identical to AC5. Even the afterburners are the same pink/purple. (Which annoys me slightly, as afterburner color is quite distinct for many planes---it's how you can tell F-16 Block 42 and 52 apart, and early vs late F-15E's) Controls/buttons are the same, with one big improvement. For telling wingmen to "disperse" you can specify what they'll go after---anything, only planes, or only ground targets. That should help a LOT, as you know in AC5 they will almost never attack ground targets, even if they're mission critical. In mission 9 (I think) I'd often run out of ammo at the very end(there's lots to shoot) and I'd wait around for 5 minutes waiting for just ONE last target to be bombed by a wingman. Weapons: In the demo there's 3 choices for each plane, and you can also pick your wingman's weapons (but not his plane). F-15 has AMRAAM, AIM-9X, and Mk84. So they're not set a decade ago, it's as modern as can be. F-18C has Harpoon, Sparrow, and JSOW. First mission is short and mainly air with a few ground targets. Second mission is pure dogfight, and your first encounter with an enemy squadron. Schnee squadron (German for snow, but mispronounced in the game--should sound like "schnay", rhymes with clay) Schnee squadron is 4 F-14D's, and fond of launching massive Phoenix attacks from out of your range. Very nasty. Not knowing what the mission was I had selected the F-18C with Harpoons. I used about 30 missiles and eventually took down one, then died. With the F-15C and AIM-9X's it was actually too easy, though I bet the actual game mission is different--you probably can't have F-15's with AIM-9X's that early. For the demo at least, enemy planes seemed very easy, but Schnee squadron was like Yellow squadron. It seems the ace squadrons are WAY tougher than the regular guys. Enemy planes that are damaged a lot but not destroyed turn yellow on the radar and are considered "neutralized" and will run away. I think you get half points, and that will be good enough to beat the mission. At the end of the demo, it advertises that it has adaptive AI. Finally, there seems to be almost a good/evil bar! Based on how the bar and scoring and targeting works, it seems you will be evaluated on how much "excess" killing there is. If you blow up EVERYTHING, you will slide towards the "mercenary" side of the bar. If you only take out mission-critical targets, you slide towards the "knight" side of the bar. Firing that last missile to take out damaged/neutralized enemy planes that are retreating seems to be especially frowned upon, as it'll trigger specific cockpit chatter about you "shooting them in the back". In the middle of the bar is "soldier". Above all it seems where you are on the bar will affect what missions/path you do. Might even affect rank/points/planes/weapons.

Speaking of connections/TV's, at this point, I'm actually thinking about getting a new CRT TV! Reasons: 1. My gaming setup is my bedroom, and the TV is on the nightstand. That means it's basically at arms-length. No 40in plasma HDTV's there! I currently have a 20in, and it literally hangs over the edges of the nightstand. 2. A 23in LCD would work, and possibly a 26. 3. But, I dislike the vast majority of LCD screens, and figure it'll be years before LCD is up to the picture quality I want. Seriously, I think *CRT* black isn't black enough, much less LCD. And I find afterimages and ghosting on most CRT's. (Yes, I have one heck of a disciminating eye, I see individual pixels on my monitor as I sit here typing this if I look) So---I'm leaning towards a new 20in or so CRT, as they are cheap, and my current one doesn't even have S-video. Switching everything to component (including DVD player) should give me improved quality and hold me over for a few more years---by then there'll either be SED, or 20in plasmas, or I'll have a new place with a 50in. Of course, it is hard to justify a new TV of the same type and size, when the current one's fine. Also I believe that companies currently focus so much of their resources on the new ones, that CRT quality has actually gone down over the years.

Instability generally refers to pitch---an F-15 or A-10 losing a large piece of wing will affect lateral stability and total lift, not pitch. Most aircraft can deal with a lot of lateral imbalance, but have problems with pitch imbalances. (There are of course limits--see the Chicago AA DC-10 crash for an example of lateral imbalance a plane can't handle--though that was combined with an asymmetric stall) As for the F-15: A big of the reason that one survived is the fact that it has very large wings with a low wing loading. If a Legacy Hornet lost a wing, it'd have no chance. (Nor would an F-14, F-111, or F-117). F-16--maybe, I don't know if the blended part contributes to lift. A quick way to estimate "survivability based on loss of a large part of the wing" is to check the stall/landing speed. The lower it is, the better the plane could cope. F-4's and F-8's would do great. (Since they can fly with their wings folded). A-10 is similar---that type of wing produces incredible amounts of lift. F-15 and A-10 don't have FBW, it's all manual. The A-10 is basically designed to have twice what it needs for everything as backup, while the F-15 has a huge wing. (I am a fan of big wings and low wing loading--it's good for everything, though drag/weight is an issue--but not much, especially considering the increased fuel fraction gained). High-speed low-alt bombing is the only thing a big wing is really undesirable---see the F-111 and Tornado---small wings.

No fast packs, except for VF-1's in battroid mode.

Must...have...Lenneth... Now hopefully we'll get some other cool characters later--namely Aelia.

Ultimate remold: MP Prime into a full Ultra Magnus. It'd be one heck of a big trailer, but it'd be cool. Or just sell the trailer as an add-on for those who bought the Ultra Magnus MP repaint. Anyways, repaint/remold possibilities: Bluestreak/Smokescreen. But we already have that in Alternators basically. Ironhide/Ratchet. But nobody wants a van. Inferno/Grapple. Now THAT would be cool. Big red firetrucks always sell, and cranes are neat. The main problem is most of these guys aren't hugely important characters. Unless there were like 4 repaints to sell it's not worth developing the mold for minor characters. And the vast majority of Autobots already have a "similar" Alternator out there now. MP Hound and MP Tracks are NOT going to sell when we all have those Alternators. Alternators has already taken up a lot of the demand/desire for high-end car TF's. The MP line has to do either jets/tanks to have something different, or be such well-liked characters people would buy them regardless of what Alternators are out there. I personally would love a MP Sideswipe. He might be popular enough to warrant a mold, though I doubt it. (I never liked the idea of him as a Viper). And he can't be remolded into MP Sustreaker. Finally--MP Grimlock would sell, but not likely the other Dinobots. Devastator is by far the most popular gestalt, but it'd be insanely expensive and complex to do---his toy didn't combine so much as you made a skeleton of purple parts and attached Constructions to it. Getting that transformation to actually WORK is almost impossible. Menasor is the most "possible" one, since the limbs are basically just car mode with fists. Though the biggest issue has always been that Motormaster is grey yet Menasor's body is black... Though I always figure you can just have a lot of revolving/flipping panels from the trailer to make a lot of black appear. Eliminating the "weapon base" mode from Motormaster would make it a lot easier. I was thinking more like instead of 5 or 6 MP-sized TF's to make an MP Gestalt, have the final form be MP sized. For most of them, that'd still make them far larger and more detailed than before. I mean, RiD Prime towers over almost all of them. The G1 gestalts are not really that big---many small TF's combined is only a medium/large TF, not Fort Max.

If it's a fake, it's one heck of a detailed F-15 schematic that is specifically a G1 seeker. The engine nozzles alone would take hours to draw. You wouldn't spend that kind of time to correctly do the 400 visible parts in a featherless F-15 exhaust, in a tiny part of the corner of a pic. Basically: 1. There is no detailed F-15 drawing out there that is a G1 seeker. 2. That drawing is incredibly detailed and accurate, and if it was a fake it would have taken many hours of research and work--and that guy should be immediately hired by an aviation magazine to do their artwork for them.

But most modern instability is SLIGHT. In the F-16, it's a matter of moving the wings 8 inches. They designed an alternate wing mounting location as a backup in case they couldn't get the FBW to work right and needed to make the plane stable. Wings in the forward mount=unstable, wings in the aft mount=stable. Or conversely, it's the matter of a few hundred pounds. Want a stable F-16? Fill the nosecone with lead. Or find a really fat pilot. However, blowing off a YF-19's arms is going to affect the balance far more than any modern plane can likely deal with. That's probably thousands of pounds. (of course, the official weights for valks have always been impossibly low, so we presume they use advanced materials that are super lightweight--so maybe the arms only weigh a few hundred pounds)

My main beef with MP Prime has always been truck mode. Everything was sacrificed to make MP Prime's robot mode the most Gundam-esque, beefiest mech they could. Honestly the G1 toy has a much more accurate/realistic truck mode. (For me, TF's are all about vehicle mode, and I dislike "fake" vehicles strongly) That and the grey gun with baby-blue accents. But---Starscream I have high hopes for, because there's F-15's in Japan, and the JASDF has always seemed to be very cooperative to any company that wants to research/reference their F-15's for some reason. So I wouldn't be surprised if right now there's some Takara engineers on base measuring an photographing an F-15J to make Starscream molds. PS---I'll wait for the Thundercracker repaint. PPS---you know, it shouldn't be that hard to do Dirge/Thrust/Ramjet too. All depends on if they can get the conehead transformation to work. (Since an "accurate" Starscream should have the nosecone completely fold into his spine, not point backwards from his skull) PPPS--I will be ordering the JP version, as the US version will have either the nosecone, missiles, or fin tips shortened/rubberized etc. I want sharp metal points on mine!

If it was in any other movie, that alone wouldn't be an homage. But in a movie about ROBOTS THAT TRANSFORM INTO PLANES, I say it's an homage.

Just a side note, my dad had a '69 Charger, it's in my parent's wedding photos. Metallic blue paint, blue interior, black top, black bumblebee stripes, and mag wheels of course.

I have seen overspray travel across an entire room (I have several things with itty-bitty blue specks over them now)---that is why I mask off ALL of a plane when spraying. Use plastic bags---grocery sacks, even garbage bags if it's a BIG model.

That the Revell Germany kit? PS--don't worry, none of the kits in my current stash will be finished this decade most likely.

DS Lite has the GB Micro's D-pad, which though small, is supposed to be the best D-pad in a generation. (Not surprising, Nintendo has the cross-shaped D-pad patent, which is why all others are "circles with a cross on top" or "4 triangles close together" ) The GC actually has a decent D-pad, just placed so horribly you can't use it. Honestly my fave part of the GC controller is the C-stick. It's so "nubby" and rubbery. Awesome grip. Now if they only used that material on D-pads...

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.