ewilen

You need Breaker Pro, not Swapmagic, to play ps1 backups on a ps2. (You need to make a .cue file to burn the .bin of the ps1 game; if you need help with that, visit afterdawn.com since it's a FAQ over there.) (Personally, having tried VF-X2 on someone else's modded PS1, I can't imagine going to the trouble.)

I think you should consider marriage counseling. It's wrong for your wife to treat you like a child and force you to give up your memorabilia--that is, assuming your hobby doesn't otherwise interfere with your ability to function normally in life with regard to career and family (and I don't think that "what other people say" counts). On the other hand, maybe you need to consider if trying to hang onto so much "baggage" is holding you back in some way. In any case, this struggle for control is probably unhealthy; as things stand, if you give in, you're going to feel resentful; if you don't, I would expect continued strife.

I defer to everyone else's comments about the VAB-2 and the various sketches, I'd like to point out that in the real world, the YF-17 Cobra LWF prototype was made by Northrop, but the F/A-18, which was based on the YF-17, was made by McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing).

About the Stryker, I haven't been able to find anything either about them being inadequately armored for Iraq (Maj. Jonathan's point) OR about them not having the armor that they're supposed to (Nied's response). So if anyone can link to an actual story about this, I'd appreciate it. I do see that a Stryker was ambushed recently with a roadside bomb and other weapons, resulting in injuries but no deaths.

Yes, this was in the news a couple days ago. I was going to provide a link to the Slashdot piece on that, but I found one on suprnova going down: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/...&tid=95&tid=123 Here's the link on the general issue: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/...&tid=97&tid=123

Actually, in the air I like to launch missiles a few times in Gerwalk then convert to fighter and fly through the enemy group before transforming back to gerwalk, turning around, and repeating. Use battroid as needed/desired to deal with nearby enemies. With bosses on the ground I like to use heavy missiles if I can, hovering in gerwalk while strafing. That's usually the way I deal with the bosses in first missions of the DYRL and TV, as well as Kamjin on Mars.

To replace F-18A/B/C/D's as they're retired. We already know that the F-35 has a bigger payload; I'm fairly certain it will also have a greater payload-range than the baby hornet, and probablybetter bringback capability. Add in better avionics and the ability to serve as stealth bombers. I'll bet that there's also a maintainability advantage, though of course nothing like the difference between Super Hornet and Tomcat. Against those advantages are the Navy's share of the F-35's development costs, and any difference in flyaway cost compared to a new baby Hornet. But overall the F-35 looks like it could be a good choice for the Navy; I certainly don't see a slam-dunk case for the opposition.

Yeah, I think I'm going to stop out of sheer exhaustion. The Super Hornet/F-14 and F-16/F-22/JSF thing just keeps coming up too often, and as I said, with basically the same points reiterated (and ignored ) on both sides. But, you know, there's always something in the last guy's post that really needs to be pointed out... Source: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/ F/A-18A-D Payload: 15,500 lbs. Hardpoints: 7 plus two wingtip rails F/A-18E/F Payload: 17,750 lbs Hardpoints: 9 plus two wingtip rails F-35C Payload: 17,000 lbs. Hardpoints: 8 including internal bays (internal bays each hold one--perhaps two--missiles and a bomb)

You'll get used to the differences from Battlecry. And then you'll probably end up liking the control scheme better. Gerwalk, I find, can't be used as with BC. The gun is minimally useful in Gerwalk (you get a slight lock on, but battroid works so much better). Gerwalk is mainly good for hovering at optimal range for missile volleys before switching to fighter and avoiding the opposing volleys, or switching to battroid to hit enemies who come close.

What's the estimated flyaway cost for an F-35A vs. F-22? And I doubt the F-22 is better at dropping bombs than the F-35, though it will get them to the target faster. That's what that GAO report was all about. The F-22 needs bases, which both limits the places it can be used and means that it will be operating out of a fixed target for enemy aircraft and missiles. The F-35C will be operating from aircraft carriers. As for the F-16 vs. F-35, again, it's not a question of how fast you can go when clean, but how fast and how far you can carry a certain payload. What is the F-16 carrying when it's going over Mach 1.8?

David, you're forgetting that the smaller bays only apply to the B model, so you should be comparing it to the Harrier, not the F-16. Far slower? I see varying numbers on the F-35, anything from Mach 1.5 to 1.8. In any case, speed in a given mission configuration is what should be compared, and then realistic speed considering range/fuel requirements. The F-16 is going to be dirtier than the F-35 in many/most configurations. Major Jonathan, thank you for at least acknowledging the logistics advantage of the Super Hornet. You can have the Beetle/Ferrari analogy if you like, although it's more like a BMW vs. Ferrari when the rest of the world is either driving Geo Metros or, yes, Lexuses--except that they only get to practice driving their Lexus a couple times a year. Or consider the Sherman/T-34 vs. Panther/Tiger analogy.

Which reall ymakes no sense, given a jet engine not only requires air, but sucks it like ... ummm... something that sucks REALLY hard. The exoatmospheric testing could have just entailed test-building the fuselage with the characteristics needed to operate in a vacuum. It may also have meant physically taking a VF-0 into space and seeing if it can operate at least minimally in Gerwalk mode (which appears to use rockets in the backpack).

Nope, it's not legal, at least in the US or any other country which is a signatory of the Berne convention. Nor is it legal, in any of those countries, to download copyrighted Macross stuff (regardless of whether the license is owned by HG or Big West). However, since the only parts of Macross which are licensed in the US are the TV show and Macross Plus, many people think it's "okay" to download the other parts or get them from HK bootleggers. I'm not an admin or mod here, but my understand of MW policy is basically that facilitating the bootlegging/downloading of properties that are licensed in the US is disallowed, but otherwise let your conscience be your guide.

I thought the JSF was the new Commonality And that's why the JSF isn't really any faster or more maneuverable than the F-16. Nope, we went through this in another thread and, for lack of what is probably classified information, we calculated the T:W ratio and wing loading of the JSF. In both areas it came out better than an F-16.

Yes, I only mean the leg FASTpacks; the field mod shown in the last episode used the leg FAST packs designed for the VF-0 as part of the VF-1 test program, coupled with a Ghost used ad-hoc as a booster. The notes on the field modification indicate that other FAST pack parts were planned for the VF-0 but I don't recall if there's an indication as to whether they were completed. (I'd guess not, since the VF-1 became available shortly after the Mayan incident; at that point it would make sense IMO to just develop the Super FAST pack "Booby Duck" configuration using a few VF-1's.) Not clear, really, where the VF-0D fits in. It's possible it was only developed as part of the crash program to convert the testbed into an operational type. Or it could be that one of the original test designs was the basis of the 0D.

Offhand, I'd say eBay, or probably Valkyrie Exchange, and no doubt a number of other dealers in HK bootleg DVDs. You could also go the high route and acquire the R2 Japanese version, assuming you can play Region 2 DVDs, but I think it may be somewhat rare. The HK bootlegs don't translate the (minimal) dialog, so the R2 wouldn't be a problem there, comparatively. Another option would be P2P (mlnet, edonkey, etc.) or possibly imacross. See the pinned imacross thread for info.

I agree, it looks sort of like a seagull landing on a dock. Was this deliberate? Because, granted, it looks awesome, but it's also a little more "alive" than I'd expect--some motion there looks more "idiosyncratic" than "necessary", like Elvis shrugging his shoulders. probably a new pilot =P Heh. Yes. I just want to add that I really don't want to take anything away from a very impressive piece of work--just offering some honest perspective in a spirit of (hopefully) constructive criticism.

I agree, it looks sort of like a seagull landing on a dock. Was this deliberate? Because, granted, it looks awesome, but it's also a little more "alive" than I'd expect--some motion there looks more "idiosyncratic" than "necessary", like Elvis shrugging his shoulders.

To truly upgrade the Tomcat to state of the art would have required at least the ASF-14. MATS claims the ASF-14 would have been cheaper than the Super Hornet program. Aerospaceweb just says the ASF-14 would have been "the most expensive of Grumman's proposals by far". Tomcat Alley says there was a feasibility study done by the Navy in 1994 which concluded that the ASF-14 was "unaffordable".

Yes, of course that's the commercial/artistic reason. Same for the real reason why there are transforming Valks in MZero: without transforming Valks, a lot of the audience interest would disappear. But in-story, the preponderance of the evidence (including comments by Kawamori himself) is that the VF-0 is a testbed for the VF-1 program, not a testbed for post-VF-1 fighters, or a parallel production fighter, or a fighter that was specially designed to fill the gap when the VF-1 wasn't ready. This is my reconstruction of the evidence from all those threads. In order to test various technologies and concepts for a thermonuclear-reaction-powered variable fighter, the UN produced a conventionally-powered testbed. (Chief among the new technologies was the battroid transformation, but exo-atmospheric operation and FASTpacks were also developed on the testbed.) It's possible that more than a few were produced in order to test new operational and tactical concepts for variable fighters. However, the aircraft was never intended for mass production. Only when the engines for the VF-1 were delayed, and the UN discovered the existence of the SV-51, was the testbed put into limited production, made operational, and dubbed the VF-0. It's a bit like what would have happened if the X-29, X-31, or F-15 ACTIVE had been quickly pressed into service.

Read the earlier threads, and if there's a point there which you feel hasn't been expressed, it would be interesting to hear it. So far I'm just seeing rehashes of the same comments, and I'm going to try to refrain from compounding the problem by rehashing my rebuttals. But since this was a direct response to something I wrote, I'll respond: Nope. When I write that the F-14 would have been replaced with nothing, I mean that it would have simply been retired--probably along with the aircraft carriers, as Congress would rightly ask why we're spending billions on knights of the air who can win jousting matches against enemy fighters but can't effectively project power where wars are won: on the ground.

Yes. No. It's a test plane which was pressed into operation to fill the gap before the VF-1's came out. http://macross.anime.net/mecha/united_nati.../vf0/index.html See also... http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...ndpost&p=217867

Wasn't going to post in this thread, but.... I don't know about circus animals, but you can get paid to manually masturbate farm animals. The Daily Show had a piece a while back with one of their reporters who visited a company which collects sperm from hogs for the sake of artificially inseminating sows. And the...product...is collected manually--to the hogs' great delight, apparently.

Nope, they're different. Flash Back 2012 contains a frame story (although very little dialog) that shows what happens to the principal three characters several years after the events in DYRL/SDF Macross.

Look at it this way: if the Super Hornet wasn't built, then they'd be replacing the Tomcats with NOTHING. You almost might as well be complaining that the Montana class BB's were never built. Edit: About the Raptor being built instead of more F-15E's, please note that the people pushing the Raptor had to promise that it would be developed as a fighter-bomber (thus the switch from F-22 to F/A-22) in order to keep the program alive.