David Hingtgen

IV *rocks*. It wasn't until like the 3rd time I played both VI and VII that I had to move IV down from #1. Still my fave Bahamut, due to speed. (Bahamut's better than Flare on a time basis--Flare takes twice as long to cast, but is less than twice as powerful--also takes a good 70% more MP to cast) Also the best Holy--Holy ROCKED in that game (and was fast). I still want FFVII-style Holy someday.

Junctioning made the game SLOWER, because since everybody could summon all they want, they expect you to use it. (This is not a summoning animation-length rant, though it could be) Anyways, FF8 had the highest HP enemies ever. Normal enemies could be 20,000 to 100,000HP easy. Basic, normal enemies could take like 3-6 summons to kill. It was the only way, unless you want to "Fight" 20 times in a row... Most spells were worthless, and unless you've junctioned 255 Holy/Ultima to strength, your weapons aren't going to do anything either. So for the first 80% of the game, summons are to only way to do any damage at all. Basically, normal fights took many, many rounds, lasting several minutes. Compare to FF10: so long as you use the right person (Wakka against flyers, Tidus against agile, etc) most people go down in one hit, most groups in one round. FF8's fights often seemed worthless---sure, I could fight a given enemy, but it'd take forever, and you didn't get much EXP. Much better to fight the weakest enemies possible, to kill them quickly. A 5-minute fight (for 2 or 3 times the exp) isn't worth it, when you could do 30-60sec fights. Now if 5-minute fight enemies were worth 10x the exp, then it'd be worth it. That's how most FF's are--blue dragons, behemoths etc give LOTS of experience. But in FF8, they're simply MUCH harder to kill, no real benefit. Any enemy more than 10 hours into the game doesn't give all that much EXP relative to it's toughness---toughness goes WAY up, exp gained does not. Finally--no boss exp in FF8. That REALLY pi**ed me off. That's always been one of the best ways to level up, and makes a 20min fight (heck, 45 in FF8 if you're using Bahamut/Leviathan summons) worth it. Except that they removed it for the .0001% of FF players who desperately want to win on as low levels as possible. "Woo, I won at level 18". Which is pointless, as most people want to be as buff as possible and whip the boss, and it's even more pointless to do so in FF8, since levels affect your stats little--junctioning is 10x more powerful for boosting stats. Despite all that, Quistis is one of my all-time fave FF characters, and Seifer's gunblade Hyperion is the coolest weapon ever.

Iowa (the state) warmed up this week, so I can continue working on Iowa (the ship). As the camoflage on the hull is done, but the hull bottom isn't, I am taking every possible precaution is masking off the camoflage pattern. Anyways, I've got it masked, and have sprayed on a heavy, thick coat of "dull cote" (Testor's lacquer). However, I'm wondering if the gloss clear would be better to seal the tape? Or would that possibly mess up the color(s) to go over the clear? (Flat black and flat brown primer). Never tried spraying flat black over clear gloss. Anyone have experience with using various clear-coats to seal masking tape?

Despite being harder, I much, much, much prefer CA as a filler as opposed to any epoxy/putty. No matter how fine, they all have grain, but CA does not, and it utterly doesn't shrink. It also "flows" and self-levels a bit---smoother filling/seams. I always mask off the surrounding plastic before sanding. And if need be, you can polish CA as smooth and clear as glass--it's certainly the only filler you can use on clear parts. PS--anyone know of a SLOW-drying xylene/toulene (like Testors) out there? When you're gluing 18+ inches on each side, one piece, it almost always dries before I can get cement all the way around the hull, and have sections that don't adhere. (Nothing's worse than the "pop" sound made from a submarine splitting in half, then finding the glue dried before you even got the two halves together)

Dang. I do believe it is the best one yet. Even *I*would shy away from those yellow decals... (Though I'd rather decal than paint any day) PS--weathering's fine, IMHO. Not that I've seen any real-life demonstrators. They work HARD though. Nothing like a cold-soak test in winter Norway to distress a plane... (Airbus did it in Siberia for the A310 though)

Am I the only one who really likes the show? (And yes, I've read dozens of Titans comics--just not hundreds, and nothing older than the 90's) I think I'm at the same level of "fandom" as I am for LoTR: read the books, but not so into it I nit-pick every word of dialogue in the movies. Same for Titans: basic familiarity with the characters and major storylines, but I don't instanty cross-reference the show with 400 issues looking for inconsistencies.

General rule: stuff dries darker, and with more intense color. Example: a medium blue-ish grey, when dry, will be a darker grey, with a stronger hint of blue in it, compared to what you see in the bottle.

I always just use car polish (paste in a a tub) for clear parts. Sure it's a bit more physical effort to hand-buff something, but no worries about it running or leaking. My Lakota's warp nacelles are foot-long hand-polished clear parts. Took hours, but they're friggin gorgeous. Most people believe they are actually clear crystal-acrylic sapphire-blue parts, not painted and polished like that from normal clear plastic. "Mother's California Gold" I think is the specific brand used, got it at Autozone.

I'd start with FS 35237. Medium dark blue-grey.

Cool, I can use that new light-up Akira to go with the Ent-E for a First Contact diorama.

Airbrushing is affected by the barometer, time of day, wind speed, wind direction, time until the vernal equinox, and various planetary alignments. In other words, mixing it up drop-by-drop identical to a batch you did yesterday, or even an hour before, will not guarantee success. Always, always test out a newly-mixed batch on scrap plastic. Also, overthinning is 100x more common than underthinning. Add as little as possible, and see if you can get it to spray by adjusting the air/paint flow. Then if you can't, add more thinner. I usually put like 80% of the thinner I think, then add more *if* necessary. Finally, distance from what you're spraying. The thing I least pay attention to, but may be something to watch for. Every inch is a BIG difference. Post-finally: did you stir everything really well? Stirred paint is thicker than paint that's sat. And did you still the thinner into the paint well? I've never said to myself "I stirred it too much", but many times it wasn't stirred enough.

::can't ignore opportunity to rant:: Or we could all go watch Pearl Harbor, with it's modern VLS-equipped missile destroyers... Not to mention that every single battleship was wrong. (They didn't make each ship individually---they CG'd a few dozen "generic US battleship parts" and put different groups of them on the same hull to represent the various ships--so they had the rough general appearance of each ship they were going for, but every single detail was wrong). And that was really stupid, as: 1. Anyone who didn't know the ships wouldn't know anyway whether the overall shape/outline was right or wrong or the gun arrangement was correct--could have just used a dozen Arizona's and they wouldn't notice. 2. Anyone who DOES know won't be fooled for a second by an "approximation". New York-class bridge+Pennsy-class tower does not equal Colorado class, even if the guns are right...

Even the worst-painted military equipment "scales out" to much finer than the finest brush-strokes. (Man, I've seen F-14's I swear were painted with rollers from Sears) Anyways--spray! I spray everything if at all possible. Little bitty parts. Wheels, tires, canopy, missiles. My basic rule is this: if it's less than one "brush stroke" wide, than it can be hand painted. Since the brush is wider than the part, you'll only need one stroke to cover the entire piece, and thus there will be no brush strokes. (Unless you've got thick paint).

Ok, I'm not painting a Yamato Millia FP but it's a perfect match to the color I do need. Anyone know a color that matches the *paint* used for on a Yamato? (The painted red parts match better than the molded red plastic) I can get Tamiya, but Testors is a lot closer. (15 vs 45 minute drive, each way). (The new Testors acrylics haveike 5 reds, hoping one is close). Or I can just mix if someone knows a formula for it. Anyone touched up the red-painted diecast parts on their Yamato Millia? (I wonder if this would get better responses in the Toys forum)

I have to get out an F-15 book for that level of info ::checks:: MFD goes along with AMRAAM (MSIP II) so yes, all US ones have apparently. (A lot of F-15A's, too, it's nigh-impossible to tell an upgraded A from an upgraded C, it's easier to tell them apart when "as built") FAST packs are about your only clue there. But since C's rarely carry them, you've got to be REALLY close to look for the attachment points when they're not equipped. Japan--yup. Basically an F-15C minus the left stab and right boom antennas. Saudi Arabia--same as Japan. (Though there were some "hasty" deliveries from old USAF planes which do have the enlarged left stab antenna, but it's empty)

I'm just a really anal nit-picker when it comes to aircraft details. (I have a heck of a reputation on several airplane modelling forums) Thunderbirds: used to have F-16A's, now have F-16C Block 42's. Quite recent, with an upgraded (but looks the same) PW engine. Latest PW's are as powerful as the early GE's. But newer GE's are still better (and better looking). F-15C: more of an "operational" thing than anything, but F-15C's will have an antenna protrusion on the end of the right rear fuselage boom. A's have none, E's have one on each boom. (The boom is that little segment just outside of the v.stabs which projects aft and to which the h.stabs attach to--you'll note the A has very pointy tips to them. On the C, the right one will have either a round or square tip, E's will have a round tip on the left and a square one on the right boom) (F-15's my fave plane, so I can rattle this stuff off easy--especially since I've built several F-15 models) Also, all F-15's will have the arrestor hook doors removed by now, and MANY C's have had the fairing itself removed. (there should be nothing projecting rearwards between the engines nowadays, the fuselage stops where the exhausts start). F-15E's were built without the fairing.

You should definitely put the YF-23 in, to compare to the YF-21. Here, a YF-23 is 67feet, 5inches long. Has a 43ft, 7 inch wingspan and is 13ft, 11inches tall.

The engine change is not guaranteed, nor is the intake. SOME C's have GE engines, and SOME of the ones with GE engines have new intakes. This is why we say things like "Small-mouth F-16C Block 30" to indicate a GE-powered one with the original small intake. The rule is: Block 25's have PW engines. (Block 25A through 25D) Block 30's have GE. (30A through 30D) Block 32 has PW Block 40 has GE Block 42 has PW Block 50 has GE Block 52 has PW (F-16A's are from Block 5 to 20, all have PW) Now, for intakes. Generally, most GE-powered F-16C's have the new bigger intake. However, those F-16C's from sub-blocks 30A and 30B do not. This includes all the F-16C's that are ex-MacDill AFB (which is a big chunk, since that was the main F-16 training base). So how to tell an F-16A from F-16C? Bigger fin base. The base of the fin extends farther forward, quite a bit. It also ALWAYS has a small blade antenna on it. Will post pics later when I find them. (Busy this afternoon) Quick guide: the leading edge of the fin's base only goes forward to the leading edge of the flaperons on an F-16A, while it extends forward all the way to the mid-point of the wing on an F-16C. Looking from above is the best way to "learn" what the 2 types look like. ::edit:: that link above only describes F-16C Block 50/52 vs Block 40/42, not the overall difference between an A and a C

Just a quick note FYI: The F-15 is an F-15A, though not as-built, but yet not as they are currently. 80's-ish IMHO. F-16 is an F-16A, very very early (block 5). Not in use anymore. 1979+ (but we got rid of them as fast as possible) All other F-16's have large h.stabs (F-16A block 10 and later, the vast majority of F-16A's), and F-16C/D's have the larger fin. F-18 isn't really an F-18. That's an F-18 prototype. (Though not a YF-17). Probably "F-18" demonstrator #1, possibly #2. (#3 introduced some changes). Wings/h.stabs (and I think v.stabs, though that may be a -17 to -18 difference, not 18 demo to 18 prod difference) are different on real F-18's. This could affect the scale for drawings, as the h.stabs determine the overall length of an F-18. (I'd have to really look to see exactly where the changes were, I don't know if it was leading edge, trailing edge, or both(

1. Redo the intakes, and you're talking AT LEAST 2.5, probably 2.7 to 2.8. 3 is pushing it, but possible. (Those engines are 12 years old now---the newest F120's could probably do even more) Heat is by far the main factor at 2.5+. (It's pretty much a big factor from 2.0+, but really kicks in at 2.2/2.3--you'll see few planes go much past Mach 2.2) 2. YF-23 is very large. It's actually 5 feet longer than a Tomcat. Wingspan is less than a Tomcat's unswept span of course. Only 3 feet shorter, even with the fins canted outwards like that--if they were straight up like a Tomcat's, it'd be several feet taller. Empty weight a lot less than a Tomcat, but mainly due to being newer (lightweight materials). Loaded weights are only a bit less than a Tomcat. It's a big plane (part of the reason given for losing the competition--it wouldn't fit in your standard USAF F-15-designed hangar--but the F-22 was small enough to do so, even if barely)

For shame, confusing the ultra-gorgeous F-23 ATF and the "fugly, but not as fugly as the F-32" F-35 JSF. This is the 2nd YF-23, The Grey Ghost. Fastest of all ATF's---on its first flight, it outaccelerated (in normal power) an F-16 on afterburner--and the F-16 is the fastest-accelerating plane there is. 2nd YF-23 is at least .2 to .4 Mach faster than the 1st YF-23, which are both faster than any F-22. 2nd YF-23's top speed is still classified, it's SUPERCRUISE is believed to be Mach 1.8. Max speed estimated as high as Mach 3, for it's sleek enough and powerful enough to do it, it's just the intakes couldn't handle it. So it's probably limited to 2.1 or 2.2 purely due to intake reasons.

Which kit are those the directions for? Reminds me a LOT of the 1/72 Fujumi F-14A kit (which was actually the last F-14 I built). IIRC, the Hase's have a more complex gear/wheelwell area, among other things. (I must admit, I've never built a Hasegawa F-14---F-14's in general are hard to build, so no matter how cool they look, I stay away from them in favor of F-15/16/18/Tornado)

The funny thing is, Northrop and Grumman were 2 different companies back when Macross came out. They've since merged, and have a logo. Now we just wait for PW and Rolls-Royce to make PW-Royce.

Yep, it sucked. Specific complaints: Beach Head. (Of course). It *really* reminded me of small soldiers. Not for one sec did I think it was supposed to be "real", I constantly thought "r/c tank in a sandbox driven by a Wild Bill figure". And since when was Wild Bill THAT good, in EVERY VEHICLE? He's a chopper pilot, period. Animators have obviously never ever seen a helicopter, and certainly don't know how they fly. They had a jet that could hover (and it didn't even move like a Harrier, either). Destro was like, huge with funky legs. Am I the only one who got the impression that Cobra Commander was REALLY short? (and walked funny, even more than the others) Flint was way ugly in close-ups. The good: Duke didn't suck. Baroness' voice (and outfit).

How'd I forget FF Tactics? (Especially since I'm 20 hours into FFT:Advance) That ROCKED.