David Hingtgen

I very much appreciate your experimenting/report, but that is exactly how IE 7 works. Only difference I note, is that no combination of options or sizes or fonts allows pizza hut's (and many others) grid/table to work right with all options visible/aligned. EXCEPT letting the site/browser dictate every aspect---which makes everything in every site quite small. I did experiment a while back with Firefox's minimum-font-size thing, but it also doesn't work the way it needs to---specifying "no smaller than 12pt" is the same problem---NOTHING will be smaller than 12 etc. And a lot of tables etc won't fit at all. But if you turn it off---then most forums and text will go down to like 4pt just like the tables/grids... I need a "basic text minimum size that won't affect tables/grids". In either FF or IE...

The airbrake thing is most likely a temporary spin-chute housing. Like the orange/white YF-19 had.

Ok, I made a screen cap from Pizza Hut (as it's the last one I can remember that was quite messed up) using both my normal settings, and the default font settings (letting the site dictate things). but it shows well how "things no longer fit" when the font size is increased. Many sites won't allow even like a 5% larger font without totally screwing up--stuff won't merely be mis-aligned, but things will actually be gone/invisible---most often the last/bottom option, which is usually yes/send/search etc. (my own email attachment program now only shows like 2 pixels to click on the "attach" button--but at least the button is still present) ::edit:: Also added the bottom of the Thalys site. This one gets quite messed up. Really, all I ask is for a BIT bigger font, but it royally screws things up--is it so hard for a site to render correctly when using any font other than what it was designed for? I did the same for MW. To me, Mike's settings on default look the same as mine on default. I currently have a 22in monitor at 1920x1080. I did try going to 1600x900 as an experiment, but it just makes things blurry--*web* text itself seemed to be the same size, surprised by that. (programs, task bar etc---that font increased in size, as expected with a lower res). Here's some caps (jpgs to reduce time) ::edit:: For comparison, so people know---with my settings on my monitor, a capital "M" in a MW post, is 3.5mm high. Not some half-inch large-type font or anything. Checking "default" settings of MW of both mine and the pic Mike sent, I get 2mm high capital M's. Readable, but not "comfy" if that makes any sense. PS--I know from screen caps of other forums I go to, that other people use non-default fonts when browsing, so I can't be the only one with this issue...

Web browser tables/charts font question: One thing I have had issues with for years now, is the fact that many tables/charts (interactive ones, like say airline reservation or pizza ordering sites) only work/fit with a teeny-tiny little font to fit inside the grid lines etc. Like, 4pt or something. Now, while I can read it, I don't like it. To the point that for years I've had my font settings in MSIE to over-ride both font type and font size. However, this makes it difficult, if not impossible, for some sites to display or even work correctly, as the bigger font screws things up--either things in grids become mis-aligned, or the buttons to choose options just "get shoved outside the grid into oblivion". Drop-down/hover menus on a site are often the worst. Firefox was no different when I tried it---similar issues IIRC. (it was one of the main reasons I tried FF) I have suspected/heard that IE 7 (yes, that's what I use, I hate IE 8 and was not fond of Firefox) may just not deal with newer sites as well---could be true, as the problem seems more prevalent lately, and was not really an issue when IE 7 was newish. So---since I hate IE 8 and it'd be pointless to try it again when IE 9 is out---would buying Win 7 now so as to be able to use IE 9 help this situation? In other words: How does IE 9 deal with charts/tables/radio buttons when you're making it display a larger-than-the-site-says font? I can take screen caps to illustrate the issue, if it's not clear what I'm talking about. I really would like a permanent solution, as I'm having to adjust font size and style all the time now, going back and forth. (and it's several menus deep, not a one-click thing) There's a big difference between font I *can* read, and font that's comfy/easy to read for hours... And most sites like to make it teeny-tiny. It's not just the new monitor, my 17in 1024x768 had the same issue, just slightly less. It's like the main problem is that a website/browser can't figure out how to enlarge the buttons/options/gridlines themselves to accomodate a font size/type other than what the site was designed with. Surely I'm not the only person who over-rides the default font settings so as to not have to spend every minute dealing with 2mm-high letters... http://www.thalys.com/nl/en/practical-travel-guide is especially bad at the bottom---there's 3 layers of stuff overlapping at the bottom of the page, hard to click/see. Ironically, that site is "too big" with my preferred settings, setting it to default everything is "just right". But 90% of sites are the opposite---They're way too tiny by default. But making them bigger makes some things "disappear". MW has teeny-tiny text by default, but doesn't have any problems when viewed with larger font settigns. Could people post a screen cap of MW so I can see how it is at default settings on their screen? Right now I actually have it at "default" everything while testing other sites and most of the lettering at MW is literally 2mm high. Strangely, editing a post gives much larger/nicer text in the edit box.

Most stealth planes have very large, simply-shaped gear doors. It's because: A. Doors are hard to stealthify (that's a word!) and the fewer you have, and the simpler the shape, the less work it is. B. Every time you open a door/panel, it screws up the seal, so you try to combine weapon/gear/access panels as much as possible. So most stealth planes have very large gear doors, to provide access to other systems without having to have more access panels. The F-22 and J-20 main gear doors are roughly similar, just hinged at the opposite ends.

F-22 has worse actuator fairings IMHO, has always spoiled to the design to me. Hard to imagine they're stealthy...

Irony: A US or German company copies the original Chinese kit...

J-20 flew. I'm sure (hoping) there'll be better video soon, but here it is: http://www.56.com/flashApp/56.10.12....=57752850&ref= (not the most interesting, it won't actually takeoff until about 4 mins in, then they cut right to it landing)

Nephtis (or Neith) would rock, and to a lesser degree, ArdJet. But really, the original Idolo I think is the coolest-looking one. (never liked the "ears and tail" of Anubis) Idolo could take out Jehuty in a second, and would "last for a while" against Anubis. Hathor I think would be an even combat match for Anubis if not actually superior, but the "foot wings" and head-crest remind me of an inverted Crescens.

I wonder if it's one of BoB's pics...

Retracting the ventral fins in space seems pointless---it should fold in the tailfins and canards too then. Note: folding ventral fins aren't that uncommon in the real world. But same as the Sv-51, they're only moved to provide ground clearance when landing.

Yeah, Gamlin gets big points by not being "genetically/plot-blessed to be vastly superior"---he works really hard at it. Hikaru and Alto etc seem to just "hop into their first fighter jet and are automatically the best in the world at it".

I see the 1/100 kit as an "idealized/sleekened for fighter mode" version, much like the Hasegawa YF-19. There wasn't much time between announcements, the DX could actually have been designed first. Making a non-transforming small vehicle kit sample is practically a weekend project for a company like Bandai.

Yup, my fave line, I just wasn't going to spoil it for anyone.

Boy, I'm almost wondering if Bandai took the DX VF-25, "filled in all the gaps and mistakes", then asked Kawamori if he'd approve it as a new design...

It wouldn't be that different from the Reno races, where the P-51 and F4U are still popular.

While I sure liked it (I still like saber battles more than anything) I'm sure Graham will not like the lack of actual clones.

Luckily for Isamu and Alto, enemy valks DO always seem to position themselves behind and above, to be shot at by the rear-facing head-laser.

There's big F-35B news/cancellations/Super Hornets ordered to cover the gap, but every story I read is a different version. Anyone have an actual raw press release or something, and not some reporter's interpretation? The F-35B doesn't affect the Navy...

Yup, that's all you need to know right there.

Oooh, sneaky sneaky--those who've spent a lot more time analyzing the pics than me, say there's two J-20's, both numbered 2001 to confuse us. If you go panel-by-panel near the engines you can apparently tell them apart, and the two prototypes have different engines.

Liara's the only character guaranteed to have survived ME1. Also why the odds are good she'll be around in ME3, too. She's the only romanceable character that can't be plot-killed. (so far)

And some people like me, just seem to have a defective back plate that screws everything up. It won't fit together right WITH THE LEGS ENTIRELY REMOVED. Removing the belly plate too---still won't lay flat/flush. Obviously it's the back plate's problem, not the legs or belly. I can sometimes get the belly plates to close but never securely, and the back plate never has, and never will, lay flush with the rest of the upper fuselage.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone here actually build the Beta version. Several built Brera's though. People started getting and building theirs here: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=29566&st=1300 Easy to miss link in that thread, step-by-step build guide: http://auf-ewig.com/h-log/0911/091120.html (and just keep clicking the link at the end of the text to get to the next section)