David Hingtgen

I'd HIGHLY suggest reading the 30-page thread here about FFXI. You'll learn a lot more about it than any review could ever tell you. http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=3951 PS--while I'm a huge FF/RPG fan in general, I'm skipping FFXI.

Just my IMHO: programmer skill outweighs system power, when it comes to graphics. Look at what happens when Square brings out a new game. It's nearly gauranteed to blow away all previous games on that system and "look like that more powerful system". And then you can have new games that look like they're running off a PSX, or my old 286... And yeesh--Ace Combat 4 still blows away all other PS2 flight games graphically, despite coming out a LONG time ago (in "game years"). It's all about how you USE the power. (Boy is that a cliche, but it applies)

Age overrules size for cost, almost always. As in, a new "cheap" fighter will end up costing more than an "expensive" fighter of an older design. F-16's about the only plane in history that actually did end up costing less (at least really early on, like Block 1), mainly because it could use an engine already in existence, and it was initially a purely close-in dayfighter. Then they added a nice new radar, kept adding things, and now we have the F-16 Block 50D...

I'd love to see someone say what's "wrong" with Valk Profile. Game's nearly flawless, and in my all-time top 5. And has greater replay value than most any RPG, with the two ENTIRELY different endings. (Ending meaning "the last 15 hours of gameplay")

Opening ships up as in you've already beat it and that's all you have left to do? Dang, I gotta start playing more after I beat Ninja Gaiden. Can't remember how many I have. I especially like the R9-DH series, as it has my initials. (Though the further I get, the worse they seem to be--the wide beam just isn't strong enough for later-level lackeys). ::edit:: I buy mags pretty much only for playable demos. GamePro sucks BTW, has so for over a decade. Sites I like: Gamespy, Gamespot, Penny-Arcade, and mostly what I hear from people I know have good taste in games. (Namely, the VG store I shop at (they're independent, not a chain) and my brother).

I got a request for a VF-1's main gear retraction sequence explanation, so here goes. Closest real-life plane I can think of is actually the F/A-18's, though they're somewhat at an angle. Anyways, assuming the gear's down, you open up the gear bay doors, and retract the strut rearward. While it's doing so, the entire wheel/axle rotates 90 degrees so that the "face" of the wheel ends up facing downwards, when the gear's fully retracted. Then the gear doors close. (There's a lot of debate of which, if any, gear doors on a VF-1 remain open when the gear's down. I myself portray them closed where possible). Really depends on the plane. Most Navy planes keep them open, Air Force planes tend to close them when possible. (Though Air Force planes are also more likely to have them designed so they have to all stay open) VF-19's gear is similar, BTW. Though it may incorporate a Z-fold, even more like the F/A-18.

Wow, I figured I'd be the only R-Type fan here. Someday I'll get past level 5. Mind-warping as it is... (RX-11's rock, they're the only thing getting me to the boss)

Heh, must have been an older ep. The current high-end engine is the GE90-115B. 115,540lbs thrust. Contingency rating of over 127,000lbs. (Airliners are my true passion). Anyways---power=acceleration and climb-rate. That's pretty much it. And as you mentioned, if you want to get to space, you need insane power. The full power of the Space Shuttle is 7.7 million pounds. Need Mach 25 for orbit, takes a lot of power to get to that speed.

My PS2 games outnumber my Xbox like 10 to 1. But JSRF alone is worth getting an XBox for. And don't forget Panzer Dragoon.

Camera sucks, but it's impossible to adjust well. Just keep hitting R to reset to default. Most of the time, just deal with it. Ryu has such incredible "knows where to go" when blocking or fighting, it doesn't really matter. My main gripe is that the camera is simply LOW, not looking the wrong way. I like the camera to be somewhat above the character, looking forward. Gaiden's camera is DIRECTLY behind Ryu, so you can't really see where you're going. PS--it's HARD. And fight in the air. Staying on the ground is death, always be jumping or wall-running.

Yup, Guilty Gear XX is the last US PS2 2d fighter. Because Sony now officially sucks. Hopefully (Hori?) will make some X-box 6-button pads, like they've done for most every other system now.

According to "the rules" anything that can reach space, isn't a plane, it's a spaceship. Thus they won't give the X-15 most of its records. YF-19's can go in space, so they're not a plane. daeudi--well, it got REALLY interesting, when they had an engine failure, and were down to 40,000ft and Mach 0.9, after having alerted pretty much the entire Warsaw Pact to their presence. Came real close to a major incident, as many MiG's were scrambled, and quite a few US planes were launched out of Japan and Korea to intercept the MiG's to protect the Blackbird. Luckily, the engine failure happened close enough to "home" that the Blackbird got out of Soviet airspace before it was in serious danger, and everything was called off. PS---SR-71 isn't invincible. It has taken a grand total of one small piece of shrapnel, at altitude. Many missiles have gotten fairly close to it, but only the one exploded close enough to actually make contact. The SR-71 is high and fast enough to avoid like 99% of stuff. But not *everything*. It also helps that the SR-71 is moderately stealthy, and has a LOT of ECM gear. It's not simply high and fast---it's got as much ECM as most dedicated Electronic Warfare planes. Many missiles launched at it were quickly jammed and went off course. If it didn't have such an advanced ECM suite, many more missiles would have gotten close, possibly hitting them.

Quite possibly only in Japan. Sony seems to be quite serious with their new "no more 2D" stance on US PS2's. Capcom Vs Snk: Chaos is XBox-only in the US, as Sony said no, purely because it's 2D. The basic idea is that they don't want "old-looking" games on their new high-end system, that 2D only belongs on the PSX etc.

The only silvering I've ever encountered (asides from those tiny spots which will appear no matter what) is when I decal over gloss. Yes, I know, everyone else on Earth swears by ultra-gloss triple-layer-future as a base for decals, but it just doesn't work for me. I go over raw flat paint. I might also add that I trim *all* the excess clear away---no clear, no silvering. (I have dedicated decal scissors).

I use microSET, but I always make sure to put some on the model itself, where the decal is to be applied. That way, you have some under the decal, not just brushed on top. For me, I believe a key thing about decal application is letting the solution WORK, then blotting out the excess water. The decal isn't "on" until it has taken on the same texture as the paint it's laying on. THEN you get to start blotting out that last bit of water trapped under the decal. Getting the decal to conform, getting the water out, preventing silvering, and decal solution, are all parts of the same step, really. It all goes together, and there isn't truly a set order. I myself tend to use massive amounts of microSET, and brush and squeegee away until the decal has conformed to the surface (and if it's conformed TIGHTLY to the surface, that means there can't be any water under it, can there? They go together). It takes time---the solution won't soften the decal enough to conform in 10 secs. Decal needs to be soft, to be able to really get tight against the surface. I've never liked microSOL, as I really, really fiddle with my decals to get them perfect--but no touching when you've microSOL'd a decal! Yes, my method takes time, and goes against what most people say (I like to apply over rough flat finishes, hate gloss, never use strong solutions) but I do get amazing results, I can decal with the very best.

Nothing ruins a plane faster than overheated wheels and brakes.

Where and how? Also, the problem of snagging the cable with one and not the other still remains---instant massive yaw, likely destroying the plane. When you snag the cable, it is trying REAL hard not to move, it is pulling the hook with tremendous force as it reels out. (They're adjustable for how hard they'll pull--if you set it for an F-14, and an F-18 landed, the cable wouldn't budge an inch, and the F-18 would probably have its back end ripped out, or be stopped in midair instantly and fall to the deck) You hook one, that part of the plane stops moving, and the rest will swing around REAL fast. Which is why real planes have the hook mounted perfectly in the center. Sometimes you will see a "split" one with multiple attachment points to the fuselage, but it always ends in one central hook.

For a legal international air record, clock starts at brake release. (Of course, the YF-19 wouldn't legally be a plane according to their rules)

Just gotta echo everyone else: 2 hooks are a BAD idea. VF-19: non-arrested landings for normal fighter jets require thousands of feet. Prometheus needs to be *gigantic* to be long enough to have room for a normal roll-out. (Never seen a valk yet with reversers, nor drag chute) Plus, it'd slow down air operations. One of the oft-forgotten benefits of an arrested landing is that it only takes like 2 secs, then the plane's already moving out of the way for the next one to land.

If we go with 60km up, in 48 secs, you only need (average) Mach 4.5 to do it. I know we had a LONG thread about this before, but Knight26 is the one who calculated out all the numbers. (I probably could, but not without re-learning basic physics of acceleration, G's, etc--which I don't feel like doing tonight) As has been mentioned, velocity and acceleration are totally different things. Still, even a YF-19 doesn't have near the power to accelerate like that. Sure, if you started at high speed and could maintain it, you could do it easy. But from "stopped on the runway" no way. I wonder if Isamu meant more like "48 secs from very low altitude". Not taking into account the time needed to take off and accelerate.

It'd be quite difficult for that to work when faced with multiple radars. An SR-71 once had no less than 280 Soviet radars tracking it (they were testing new ECM stuff). Surely, there'd be overlaps etc, that you couldn't counter one without amplifying another. Then there's the sheer power factor----a dedicated AWACS could just overpower it, that no small fighter would have enough power to absorb and counter it. Still the best way to try to get a stealth---use so much power, that even if only 1-trillionth of the signal makes it back, it's enough to detect. Or like above--use so many radars from so many positions, that something will reflect somewhere.

Most aircraft do add stuff up top. (Most any avionics "hump", and F-16 CFT's) A-4 and F-8 are about the earliest jets I can think of with prominent additions to them as they evolved. The F-15 (and valks) are the only ones that put it along the sides of the belly that I can think of at 4AM... (going to bed now)

Asides from the VF-17, any stealth valk has active stealth, not passive stealth. As in, there's a really high-tech little box that the pilot flips to "on" when he wants to be stealthy. You could equip an UPS truck with that, and then it'd be stealthy. Pure tech, not design. Remember, little tiny things can make a plane's radar cross section go up 100-fold. YF-21's canopy bumps alone would make it un-stealthy. If you want to be stealthy by physical shape, every little cubic millimeter must be shaped right.

Don't even bother with Airfix. Their best is worse than Hasegawa's worst. It's simple. Is is a plastic model of something? Then you want Hasegawa or Tamiya. Possibly Fujimi. That's about it, barring the rare really good Revell kit, or lately, Academy. (Academy tends to be of high quality, but questionable accuracy---sure, it may be cheap, 1/32, with ultra-fine engraving and 500 weapons, but be sure to see if they got the BASIC SHAPE right). I highly suspect Academy just follows line-art drawings extremely accurately for most of their molds--thus every "little engraved detail" is right, but they haven't actually crawled over a real one in a museum to see how the basic shapes and curves actually fit together in 3D. Their 1/48 F-15 is the best example of this. And Hasegawa's specialty is modern jets, so go with their F-15. Tip: Anything that happens to actually be in Japan, is likely to have a VERY accurate kit from Hasegawa. Of course, like almost all Hase kits, there's a new and an old version. And for some reasons, Hase keeps pumping out the old ones (like their M0 F-14 kit) alongside the far superior new ones. I just snagged their 1/72 Sundowners F-4B/N reissue, and it's wonderfully accurate. Hase has F-4's down pat, no less than 4 v.stab tips.

Huh. That is an *old-school* fan spinner. Looks like it's from the 60's. (Hey, I've stuck my head up many an intake). Wonder if that actually follows Kawamori's intentions/design, or is Hasegawa just guessing/swiping F-4 parts? Military jet blades haven't changed appearance much over the years, it's really only evident in airliners. Ever seen a GE90-115B's blades? "Wicked" is the only way to describe them.