David Hingtgen

I personally really like the Joker poster. Regardless of perspective of the background, it's a cool shot of him.

Oh, yes it can. Lots of neat features are often cut for cost/maintenance reasons in the production version.

I don't have any contacts with anybody.

Twobobs is making decals, once they're out there'll be full painting diagrams. http://twobobs.net/ Almost done: http://twobobs.net/Newsletter/48-158.jpg 32nd, 48th, and 72 scale coming.

Elmendorf already has their planes, they're just not operational yet. 90th FS.

I've looked at the 32in 1080p Sharps side-by-side to several 720p. And the difference, at arm's-length viewing distance, is ONLY noticeable with large, static text. It's less jaggy. Slightly. On angled bits, like M and W and V. Like the logo of a movie at the start. And I stare for minutes on end looking for a difference. Maybe video games (HUD/text) would show it more, but for "general images" there's not the slightest difference. I really, really tried to see a difference but couldn't. Maybe the image is 1% clearer. But it's not worth paying more and having lower quality everything else. The Samsungs just looked to have the best overall picture. "Max resolution potential" is not the end-all be-all of TV's. Same as Megapixels in a camera--it's simply the highest possible resolution, not a direct indicator of quality of the image. However, I do not know what the source was. I would guess 1080i. But if it was 720p, maybe the 1080's were simply upscaling the 720 to fit, and giving them a true 1080p source would really show the difference. Also--the 32in 1080p Sharps have banding. It's subtle, but there and all over the screen. People have commented on it, but it's the only "known flaw" in 2007 sets of all brands that I immediately noticed in stores. (Every brand has some flaw this year, but it's usually subtle and you don't notice until you've owned it a week---but I saw banding on the Sharp's in an instant). That's basically a deal-killer. If I notice it in the store, I'll REALLY notice it and be annoyed at home.

I plan on getting 32 for two very good reasons: 1. Space. 2. Cost. I cannot fit a 37, period, even if I had the money. Actually, based on distance, a 32 might actually be too big--I'm going to have to move it as far back as I can. But 30's are no longer made, and 26 is just not worth it---they cost 90% as much, yet seem to be inherently lower quality. 32 is the smallest LCD you can get that can be as high quality as the 40's/50's etc. Cost is not really THAT much of a concern--a nice 32 costs roughly a grand, or a bit lower. Yes, I could get a cheap or even decent 40 inch for that much. But I want a GOOD TV, not a BIG TV that sucks. (And I don't have room for a cheap 40in)

Mass Effect is rendered by the 360 at 720p, then upscaled by the 360 itself to 1080 if you have it set that way. I don't know of any 360 game that REALLY is 1080. I mean, MS could design the 360 to upscale it to some "superHD" spec of 2440p before it sent it over the cables to your TV, but it wouldn't actually be rendering the polys and textures like that. ME is 1080p just like Halo 3 is 1080p. The 360 will scale it however you want it, but it won't make it any prettier.

Langley's F-22's have reached FULL operational capability as of yesterday. (Means they can actually be deployed overseas) "Super Gripen" going ahead. It's going to rock. Super Hornet engine, and AESA radar. Amazingly enough, the new engine is cheaper than the current Gripen engine despite having 21% more thrust. And requires no intake changes to accomodate it. Expected to fly in 2008.

LV1 is an exact copy of one of the most well-known real low-vis schemes, which is itself very similar to the next 5 or so most common real-world low-vis schemes. It's as typical and realistic as low-vis gets. LV2 isn't even low-vis IMHO, and is only an approximation of a not-well-known semi-SEA scheme from Japan. It's camoflage, but it sure isn't low-vis.

Oh no, use afterburner. You go with the max thrust regardless of how it's achieved. Omitting afterburner is kind of like saying "this car has 200horsepower, because we're not going to count the extra 40 it gets from the supercharger, because it's sometimes bypassed and not always available"

An empty F-15C has about a 1.7 thrust-to-weight ratio. Here's a page with LOTS of weights for the F-15 variants: http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/F15.html Where are you getting 155 kn for an F-15's thrust? That's well below the lowest spec. I get 208 kn for a -220 engine. (23,400lbs x2, divided by 2.205, times 9.8, divided by 1000). Again, metric and kilograms won't calculate out nicely if you don't have the same unit of measurement. If you want a "proper" 1.7 thrust to weight ratio for an empty 15C, you need the following: 208 kn of thrust. 208,000 newtons of thrust. 12,700kg of weight. Times 9.8 to get newtons. 124,460 newtons of weight. 208,000 divided by 124,460 is 1.67. (Numbers vary depending on your source--I don't have my best F-15 book handy to get "authoritative" numbers) See, a pound of thrust is the exact same unit as a pound of weight. But a kilogram and kilonewton are not the same---you have to take into account the force of gravity. Thus, part of the reason aviation still uses English measurements. A "combat load" F-15C is right around 1, or just above it. A fully loaded F-15 can drop down to .6 (which is sad, considering some airliners hit .4)

This should be more in the FAQ, but yes, the Movie version has many new/edited scenes. But it is overall shorter, with many entire sections cut out. Basically--you have to see both versions to "get it all". Especially for the the YF-21 and Guld.

But most 360 games output 720p, so showing it on a 1080p set is kinda pointless, since it'd have to downscale everything. I'd assume scaling 1080 to 720 takes more time than scaling 720 to 768 (more pixels to deal with). More lag. Also, video games don't render "different sizes" for different resolutions. For the same 360 game, running it in 480i, and 720p, on a CRT, 720p, and 1080p set, will all have the exact same dimensions, and aspect ratio. No black bars. (unless it's a forced 16:9 game on a 4:3 set). AFAIK. PS--Ishimaru---there is almost no set currently made that has a truly native 720p resolution. The vast majority of "720p" are actually 1366x768. Yet almost all 360 games are 720p. You don't see massive amounts of posts about people complaining about scaling and incompatability of the 360 with every HDTV ever, do you? The TV's out there are really 768, and 1080. Your 360 is going to have to upscale regardless of what you buy. And personally, I'd go with the least amount of scaling.

As simple as it gets. Total thrust of the engines divided by weight of the plane. Bigger is better. Numbers above 1 allow straight up flight. The issue is--what weight? Empty, max takeoff, or "typical combat load"? There is a defined standard for "combat load", but few people use/agree with it. Something like 1/2 weapons and 3/4 fuel. And some people like to do the opposite, which is weight-per-thrust units, where lower numbers are better. (In other words, how many pounds of plane must each unit of power carry). (based off the common "pounds per horsepower" measurement of cars) PS---converting kg to Kn? Are you sure? I've never seen engines measured in kg. That's not technically a valid measurement unit for thrust---mass vs force. I'm betting someone got confused somewhere, and figured since a "pound of thrust" was valid, that you could just divide it by 2.205 and get a "kilogram of thrust"---but it doesn't work that way.

I don't like Mustangs, and I DESPISE ricey cars. This is both combined.

The VF-17 resembles the F-117 because it's the best-known "stealth shape". It doesn't NEED to resemble the F-117 to have passive stealth due to shape, but that's certainly a VALID shape for it to be. Basically: a passive stealth valk should resemble some real-world stealth aircraft. An active stealth valk can have any shape. (the YF-21 is both IMHO, having passive and active stealth--so I presume if the active stealth system shuts down or something, it's still somewhat stealthy) Kawamori wanted people to instantly recognize that the VF-17 was stealthy (due to passive stealth) so he went with the most recognizable stealth shape there is.

Space is tight because my movie/gaming TV is in my bedroom, not the living room. And my bedroom is packed with models and books. The big living room TV would cost WAY too much to upgrade to an HDTV, and I wouldn't want to anyways, as I will be doing far more HD gaming than HD movies or TV. (I have mecha on top of both speakers and the stereo, including valks--actually the stereo has more valks than any other place they're displayed) (yet another reason to buy electronics with FLAT tops)

LOL---how big is it? Room is a critical factor. (It's why my SNES is boxed up at the moment) But honestly, speakers are the main problem. I have 2, and that's only because one is squished on top of my dresser, surrounded by model airplanes, and the other just sits on the floor. There's not really a good way (or any way I think) to get a surround setup right now in my room. I basically sit "back left corner", relative to the TV. Any speaker mount would have to be basically touching the ceiling, and ahead or to the right. (every inch of wall space in my room is either the closet, window, or shelving). I have LOTS of shelves. Many airplane books, and many airplane models sit on those shelves. And I have CD and DVD towers tucked in anywhere there's room.

If I can get Dolby pro out of an optical output on the TV from an HDMI source, but it still just goes into a basic stereo with only 2 speaker locations (left and right), is there really any point to do that vs RCA cables? Since that stereo's not going to do surround sound no matter what signal it gets. Would the Dolby pro over optical have an inherently better signal/clarity/quality, even if it does end up being 2-channel?

Found it! TOSlink optical to mini optical adapter. Right at the top--and a lot of other nifty adapters too: http://www.minidisc.org/part_Fiber_Optic_Hardware.html It is literally a very small optical connection. Headphone jack sized or thereabouts. Even more useful, they do seem to make optical cables with a TOSlink on one end and a mini on the other.

Question: for the time being (as in, not spending any money on audio) is there a way to hook up a TV's optical output to a minidisc optical input? That's the only optical input my stereo has. For "free audio" I can only currently use minidisc optical or RCA. (guess the brand and vintage of my stereo based on that statement) Though I wonder if optical from a TV to a "mere" stereo would even be worth it vs RCA, as my stereo speakers can't do surround or anything. Anything's better than a TV's own speakers though.

Dated, due to lack of caring/money when it comes to audio (as I've stated). It will probably be a year or more until I actually get a receiver etc.

OK, I just found out that it seems that due to HDCP etc, no HDTV will output DTS/5.1 from an HDMI source, via digital output. So how do you get surround sound from external speakers, from an HDMI source? Do you have to use composite connections? If so--what's the point of having a digital output on a HDTV, if they won't output anything good with it?

Low-alt, high-speed B-52 pass: F-14 with visible sonic boom. (And yes, I mean a boom, not your standard Mach .95 condensation cloud) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ2pkmISOLM