Lynx7725

Oh. Sorry. No biggie. Seems like most people don't have experience with this game. It's actually fairly fun in a brainless way.

I *WAS* using a gamepad. Up to 16 now on Normal, can't seem to survive long enough to break 16.

Darn you Wolfx.. I've been playing this since I downloaded it. My fingers hurt. Owie Fun though. EDIT: How many darn levels anyway? I'm up to 12 on Easy, not sure whether there's an end in sight.

Ah thanks Exo. The interview sorts of confirmed what I suspected. I think people just misunderstood what I said.. I meant really that the CG was appropriate to the story. I don't think it's SOTA, but it didn't need to be. I do think Pixar paid a lot of attention to details and it paid off for them. Whatever the case, go watch the show -- again if necessary.

Possibly. But I think by the time the general public hear of a particular X-project, the technology would already been proven to be feasible, just not whether it's particularly effective or cost-efficient. And your example of the swing wing is what I was trying to say -- they knew swing wing can possibly work, so they test it in an X-project. Once some of the limitations are known (via the X-project testing), it can be translated into something practical.. in this case, our beloved Tomcats.

Because it's not the records the engineers are really after -- that's a PR stunt really -- but more of pushing the envelope on a certain technology. Put it this way. Any system nowadays has multiple variables in it. You want to improve the system (especially if it's some new system), typically you constraint ALL but one variable, and work to improve on that variable until you are happy with it. You reduce the scope of the improvement to something manageable. The reason is that if you start playing with too many variables, they compound the end result and you get way too broad a range of returns.. it becomes very difficult to measure the improvement gains, and you can't be sure which is the main contributing factor to the improvement. In terms of improvement with existing systems, if the system is well know.. say, an existing airframe, I guess it is possible for an engineer to tweak multiple variables at the same time ("Hey, if we adjust the wing chord, while upping the engine output, and then we do this thingabob, we can get a 10% improvement in thismeaninglessstat!"). However, you don't really want to do that with new systems.. because it ends up very unpredictable. These X-prizes are useless as end results.. nobody who is pragmatic would really care what is the fastest man-made object on record. It's how we got there that's important. Pushing the envelope in one area lead us to better understanding of how to consistently achieve results in that area, and that has practical applications. In this case, if things go well, we know more about how to work scramjet more reliably. If things go boom, we know what not to do.

Oh yeah, I was impressed with the fire.. I'm not sure if that was CG or real life footage digitally merged in, but it was good. Talking about that, the Ice effects were good too. Hmm I won't write off Square so fast; I think, if we sat both Pixar and Square down and gave them the same work to be done in the same style, both companies would be able to produce astonishing works. I think where Square "bricked it" (to quote JsArclight) is that they are not really consistent. Some parts of FF:TSW was good but others weren't Pixar was -- every frame -- and won out. Actually, I thought the FF:TSW animation was fairly okay. Where it was important, IIRC the animators went to the trouble of putting in body language. Frankly though, the darn show fell flat because it didn't have a decent script or any characters you can relate to. The Incredibles, because they showed the family as a normal everyday family, built a connection with the audience before the goofy (and fun) stuff started. Max: Yeah, I know. But when the CG boom hit, too many movies went over-the-top with the special effects, and that really left a sour taste in my mouth. Actually, I was thinking more in terms of fully CG stories.. Hmm come to think of it, Forest Gump used CG extensively right? At the end of the day, I guess I walked in with the expectation that the CG would be good, and Pixar didn't disappoint. (Same as FF:TSW actually). I was more skeptical about plot and character development, and it's these departments that Pixar/ Disney delivered -- and Square fell on its face, to quote one example.

JsArclight is touching around the idea. I'm not saying the CG is terrible.. I'm saying the CG was appropriate, even though it's not the highest tech available. It's high time producers think about using CG as a support and not a showcase. Can't have a movie without a story and all that. If you ask some Pixar techie, they will probably tell you that they can do FF:TSW better than Square can.. and I'll believe them. Have you looked at the credits? They had an incredible amount of people on the animation team for The Incredibles.. heck, they have an entire team devoted to cloth! They also had renderers named after the company.. that bespoke of serious attention to detail with the talent AND hardware muscle to execute it. I am willing to bet, given the right incentive, Pixar can blow FF:TSW away technically. So why the "simplified" CG (or style, as JsArclight puts it)? I am willing to bet (again), if you go and talk to the project manager of this movie, it was a conscious design move to not tackle it with an emphasis on technical magnificance (either as a general company policy or specific to this project). Whoever made that decision knew story and character development are more important in capturing the audience in the limited time they have -- something FF:TSW obviously failed to achieve. The brillance of The Incredibles is that they struck the right balance between story, character development, and technical excellence. That's why it's a must-get for me. One thing about FF:TSW, you gotta think.. which language are they lip-synching to?

Don't get me wrong. The CG is good.. but shows like Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, the Matrix trilogy, LOTR Trilogy and others demonstrate that technically, we have already reach the stage where we can practically do anything we like in CG. Practically every major movie that has been produced in recent years has about the same level of CG. The CG in The Incredibles introduced nothing new, but it makes very good use of CG to get the story across, and to me, that's what's important and that's what makes this movie worth watching. The standard is very good -- that is unquestionable. Where The Incredibles raised the standard is to not use CG to its fullest potential for the sake of tech, but to use a non-SOTA CG to support an excellent story.

Just saw it today.. sufficiently good to be entertaining, I think I will pick up a home copy. If Marvel sues Pixar over this, they got way too much money and way too little new creative ideas. EDIT: Hmm.. having sat down and thought over things, both the CG and the story are not very impressive.. we know the CG can be even more life-like (but deliberately toned down for the story's atmosphere -- correct decision there), and the plot and eventual conclusion are both predictable, nothing too surprising there. The reason why this movie is good IMO is, one, the CG supports the story, and two, the story focus on character development without getting too angstsy. I particularly like the way Violet grew up over the course of two hours, and the way Mr. and Mrs. Incredible were shown to be a couple. Favourite moment? Must be Elastigirl's multi-door predicament. That was funny. : Second on the list is probably the way Violet got the whole family off the hook -- understated sacrasm tickles me.

Siigh.. Considering I don't live in the States, contacting Toynami might not be a viable solution. I'm actually amazed that they survived so long selling sub-par products at inflated prices.

The one attached. Not the greatest, but you would know which I am referring to. In reply to Graham, the red is okay with me (and photography has a nasty habit of making colours look strange), but the head so have to be resculpted. Ick.

I don't know. I liked the Red Alpha because of one particular illustration in the Robotech RPG books, but this: Doesn't look anything like that.. I guess I can redo the head by myself.. but somehow the photographs here: Makes the Alpha look like a gorilla. Brrr. And definitely needs replacement decals. Not sure if I still want to get a Red Alpha.. But the head is better than the Blue or Green IMO. And of course I need to state that these are Toynami pics, as if the watermark ain't enough to tell ya.

*laughs* Knight, what do you expect? Most of us aren't even remotely connected to the aerospace industry, just a bunch of wannabes. To some, a FSW is a FSW is a FSW. Tell ya what, design a plane with 4 wings, 2 on each side connected at the root. No matter how you place the wings -- horizontally, vertically, gull, FSW, swept back -- someone is going to say it looks like an X-wing ("but with s-foils on top", "with dipped s-foils", "with s-foils swept forward/ back", etc.).

Haha.. we have a similar one here too. 'cept it's a blond, in a tight blue dress, and she's a bit more vicious to the guy (whacked him with a wad of paper, she did. Feisty. )

Think you can find a copy online?

EDIT: Just got a new DIVX player. Aye, pretty cute. The girl too.

I meant in general.. US Pacific planes are notorious for being flying tanks. And Japanese planes are notorious for being flying fuel tanks.. I guess it's a difference in philosophy, but to be honest I never really enjoyed European WWII flight sims. The performance between line fighters are so similar that it's really pointless to fly.. it becomes a matter of endurance, who can last longer than the other.. assuming equal pilot skills, of course. Whereas in the Pacific the difference in styles makes it really challenging to get the other side to fight on your terms. Total newbies have a fighting chance against aces if they can sucker the aces into a fight that is counter to the plane's design philosophy.

The 'Tang is a nice little plane, but nothing beats Ms. Inverted Gull Wings in my books. Loved the look, loved the flight characteristics (in sims). Come to think of it, I never really thought very highly of the Mustang.. it's an okay plane I guess, but the Pacific Theater seems to breed muscular and tough planes more so than the European Theater.

Woah. That's the next generation attack craft I guess.. Mount a gun and a few missiles on it and it'll be lethal, I tell ya. :D Wonder how it'll do against a S(ewer) Hornet?

Not in its entirety, but it's okay; just don't go in with the expectations that it would be better than the original BGC... in some areas it is better, in others it's worse.

Why not just actually pack the guns into the nose? You seem to have a preference for having externally mounted guns, but in this case seems like an internally mounted, fixed-front nose weapon would look good. Wonder where the sensor equipments are supposed to go now though.. The stubs looks better.. overall I think this rough outline is the way to go, what remain are the itsy-bitsy details.

Hey, what can I say? I like to make things go boom. Depending on the size of your torps, they might fit on a stub.. one below, one alongside, one above; nothing says I have to hang all my ordnance BENEATH a stub in space. Yeah, the chin guns might be good. The nose looks a bit squarish now, and can stand a bit of embellishment.

Looks good; I'm still getting used to the assymetrical design, but looks good. Two things. First, looking at the top-down view, it seems to me that you have a tendency to have very squared-off rear ends on your crafts. Somehow, straight lines there bothers me. Second, why hand a gatling on the stubs? I was thinking, have a pair of guns near the canards, one shooting over and one under. Then we can mount REALLY BIG ORDNANCE on the stubs.. say, 3 torps. On each stub. For a total of 6 torps.. Hmm, so much for "light" assault craft.

I think don't worry about it. So long both sides are balanced off in terms of amount of armaments per craft, it's okay.. (come to think of it, I don't think we've seen many "bad guys" crafts, have we?) I think it's just that Zentrandude and me, we are used to games that showcase air/ space craft with limited number of armaments. (e.g. X-wings -- effectively 4 las and what, 6 Torps? F-14s -- after the missiles are gone it's done to one gun with less than a minute's ammo load..). We're just not used to seeing crafts that seem to have a lot of combat endurance... for example, the Hornet (1 gun(?), 12 AARAAMs) vs your Splicer 5000 (6 guns, 10 missiles and 2 anti-ship torps). Not too sure whether it's comparing apples with apples, but man, it sure seems a lot more, especially the gun load.