anime52k8

because such schemes are more complicated and would cost more to develop and produce? and in the grand scheme of things would most likely not sell better to the point that it would justify the added cost? and do they have to make some sort of licensing deal in order to use the markings form a real squadron. It may be more effort than it's worth to get permission to use real squadron markings. and it may be more effort than it's worth to design a new scheme from scratch.

eww... and I liked the panamera.

by "display" he means

it's a combination of nostalgia making you believe that stuff you watched way back when was less crap than it really was, and the fact that it's been 20-30 years and everyone's forgotten that there has always been just as much mediocre poo as there is now. in 20 years, all the people in their late teens and early 20's today are going to making the exact same statement you are now, substituting late 90's and 2000's for 1980's and early 90's of course.

oh wow...

and finally this is how I do it personally. this is kind of like how Talos does it, but instead of using a multiply line art, I prefer to have the line art on a transparent layer. ok, so what you do is go into the channels pallet (tab next to the layers pallet) and select one (I usually just use the red channel on B&W line art) then right click the channel and duplicate it now you go up to the select pull down menu. and click on the load selection option form the bottom of the pull down menu and from the load selection menu create a new selection from the red layer copy. now invert the selection you just made (select>invert selection) and create a new layer. now on the new layer, fill the selection (shift+F5) with black now you can get rid of the old line art layer and you have a your line art with no white that you can stick over other layers while still in normal mode. then you do the color and markings same as always.

option 2: this one is what talos suggested in photoshop. first your going to need to make sure that the line art is on a layer and not the background. you can tell if it's the background because it will say "background" in italics and have a little grey lock oposite the preview image. if it is the background, convert it to a layer by right clicking on the layer and select "layer from background..." form the top of the pull down menu. then you use that same pull down menu from before to make the layer a multiply layer. (I remembered to highlight the pull down menu this time) then you can stack all your color and marking layers below your line art. next up is option 3...

there are a couple of ways. I'm just going to go ahead and assume that you have the line art as part of the background layer. one way is to do the markings on a seperate layer and then set the layer to multiply: you can also use the same technique to color over the line art, but there's one problem. if you put a layer set on multiply over another layer with color, it will mess with the color on the multiply layer. a color set to multiply over white doesn't change and a color over black becomes black, any other color or shade and it will become a mix of the two. one way around this is that you can make both the color and marking layers separately then, with them both in normal mode, merge them into one layer: then you set the new merged layer to multiply now the only problem is that you can't go back and edit the color and marking layers once they're merged, so you need to be sure to keep a separate file where the layers aren't merged that you can re edit later, and don't merge the layers til you are 100% done making the markings and color you want. ok, so that's option 1, option 2 is in the next post.

Does anyone with a DSLR that has video actually use it? I've been looking at the Canon T1i and 50D, the T1i has video and supposedly a hair better image quality, and cost about $300-$500USD less than than the 50D, but the 50D is supposed to be a faster camera, has better AF sensor points, and I like extra display panel on the 50D better. If I buy right now I've got about $1,400 to spend. I'm wondering If I'd be better off getting the 50D with the 28-135mm kit lens, or if I should get the T1i with a Tamron 28-75mm lens. I would rather go with the the canon 28-70mm L lens, but I've been repeatedly brow beaten out of that idea.

Yahoo Japan auctions.

I was about to say the product of the drunken frat party hook up of an F-16 and a Mig-39M, but I like your description too.

oh noes entertaining media doesn't have to skull f*ck me with it's overwhelming intelligence in order to be fun. whatever shall we do?!? [/sarcasm] really though, I don't understand why there's an expectation that any given piece of media has to be the height of intellectual depth and philosophical significance at all times to be good. I like shallow media, it's more fun. If I wanted to deal with complex moral dilemmas and serious subject matter I'd go out and deal with the clusterf*ck that is my life. I think everyone would be better off if they rented one of those giant inflatable hamster balls and rolled down a hill in it. there's nothing better to remind you that simple inconsequential stimulation is the best kind of fun there is. (1) let x = 2+2 (2)[multiply by x-1] x(x-1)=(2+2)(x-1) (3) x^2 -x = 2x+2x-2-2 (4)[subtract 3x] x^2-4x=x-4 (5)[multiply by x-5] (x-5)(x^2-4x)=(x-5)(x-4) (6)x^3-9x^2+20x=x^2-9x+20 (7)x(x-4)(x-5)=(x-4)(x-5) ([divide by x-4] x^2-5x=x-5 (9)[add 4x] x^2-x=5x-5 (10)x(x-1)=5(x-1) (11)[divide by (x-1)] x=5 Q.E.D. BITCHES

hot... even with the floating arms

yeah, um... right. what does this have to do with toys again?

well your intelligence insults my intelligence's insulting of anime's intelligence almost as much as the department of navel intelligence insults my intelligence... I seem to be running out of pills. no mater :edit: and I loved Howls Moving Castle.

that reminds me, that's another thing the world doesn't need: Pirates III. really, throwing more money at it does not a better porno make.

no, but I've been in the process of building a Hase 1/48 F-4E and F-15C for the last year. does that count for anything? I think it's fare to say that a hasegawa kit is from a design standpoint much simpler than a bandai kit. the actual building process is obviously more complex, but looking strictly at the engineering that went into the kit, bandai's engineers deserve the bigger paycheck hands down. A hase kit has to crisply and accurately replicate an intensive level detail and be easily injection molded, a Gundam kit needs to be mass producible and retain good levels of detail while still being extensively articulated, durable enough to survive repetitive posing, and need to be both consistent and intuitive enough that a 10 year old can build one out of the box with only common household items.) Honestly, I've tried the whole "true" modeling thing. I got my first plastic model when I was 8 and have been doing it on and off ever since. over the last 11 years I've gone through dozens and dozens of kits, and still have about about a dozen more I need to build. after hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars, I've had a realization. I find absolutely nothing fun in modeling Of all the plastic models I've built, I have all of 2 left, both car models. Every other kit I've ever built I've thrown out for one reason or another at this point. some were broken due to various cleaning and moving accidents, others were destroyed by failed build experiments, and most ended up looking like crap despite considerable care and effort on my part and found themselves in the trash can shortly after finishing them. By contrast, I currently have 6 have six surviving gunpla or about half of the kits I've owned not sub HGUC level gundam wing kits from back when gundam was almost popular in the US. Everything about conventional model building I fined at best frustrating and at worse hazardous. I've burned myself, cut myself, smashed my fingers, torn off finger nails, jabbed myself with a running dremel, partially blacked out do to unintentional paint fume inhalation and gotten half molten plastic shavings in my eye. I swear model building has taken a decade off my life at least. I think it's absolutely amazing when someone can take a pile of plastic parts and make something that looks like a real vehicle out of it, but I think that honestly some people just are not capable of building models. All the practice, patience and published how-to's in the world aren't going to make a difference if you aren't born with that inherent talent. I'm a strong believer that some people are just born better than others and there's nothing one can do about it. True models are frankly a lot meaner spirited than gundam kits. Models are so demanding of YOU, they expect you to have all the skill and knowledge without any thought as to how you feel. Then if you don't live up to THEIR expectations they get all indigent and start to mock you. Gundam kits are so much more personable, with a gundam kit it's not about them, it's about YOU. A gundam kit never judges you or insults you if you arn't a master builder. A gundam kit just wants you to be happy with who you are. Really, a Gundam kit is less like a model and more like a more complex set of LEGOs. I like LEGOs. Lego's are fun, peaceful toys. LEGOs aren't about being the best or a slave to detail and accuracy, they're about the the satisfaction of tinkering away with small parts until you have something that's nice to look at and fun to play with, all while giving you that little satisfaction at the back of your head that it was your hands and not the hands of some under payed Chinese factory worker that made it. when I started writing this, I had some sort of point I was trying to get across, but I can't remember what it was anymore. anyways, all I want is a VF-25 battroid mode that's bigger and nicer looking than the DX, that doesn't take a lot of time and effort to make look nice on my shelf next to my other gunpla and yamato toy's. the VF-25's fighter mode is only so so anyways, and I'm more of a battroid mode person.

I think he used yellow vinyl tape.

I always wanted one of these. Though as much as I love taking advantage of Cast off features, I always thought this one looked odd in just underwear, tattered uniform and the full BFG works better.

As much as I want to be more positive I have to say that there are some SERIOUS anatomical problems with model. Basically you have the upper body drastically undersized for the width of the hip. and your legs attach too far outside the body. The line where the leg meets the pelvis is too vertical, it should be about the same angle as the red line. Also the legs are a too far apart and should be brought in a small amount. Now the vertical blue line on the outside of the hips, that line should line up with the red line running through the shoulder. Moving in the legs will help a little but your main thing should be enlarging the torso. The torso from the top of the hips up should be about 20~30 wider. Another major area of issue is the shoulders and the chest area between the bust and collarbone. Basically the shoulders need to be broader and taller, the top of the shoulder should be where the orange line is relative to the rest of the torso, and the head and neck should be raised accordingly. another thing I've noticed is that the breast have no appearance of weight at all, they look like a barbie doll bust. Her butt suffers from the same problem, to be frank it almost looks like she has three cracks and no cheeks. (NSFW drawing links ahead) here's a site with a tutorial on drawing proper female proportions: http://www.farlowstudios.com/content/view/60/56/1/0/ and here's a site with a bunch of charts for realistic human proportions. http://figure-drawings.com/How-to-Draw-Proportions.html both of these are 2D but the same rules apply for what you're doing. :edit: Whoops, forgot the diagram.

god is the alien in that unintentionally creepy. strait up nightmare fuel.

she's cute, much better than the last one. I'd still rather have a macro klan.

Well first I figure the interface on the VF-27 is more based off the BDI/BCS from the YF-21 than anything form any other property. Anyways, the COFFIN system first shows up in Ace Combat 3 which came out in 1999 and Macross Plus came out in 1994, so it's possible that the idea for the COFFIN system came from Macross. Also the XFA-27 doesn't really use COFFIN, but rather screens on the sides and floor of the cockpit like the YF-19. Now the XFA-27 first shows up in Ace Combat 2 which was released in 1995, but since cockpit view wasn't introduced to the Ace Combat series until AC4 so the XFA-27 didn't get an official cockpit design until ACX in 2006. Either way, you could also argue that the XFA-27's cockpit was also inspired by Macross. Then there's the obvious example of the CFA-44 which has the Itano Circus weapon that's a strait copy of every VF in Macross.

I build both and find both enjoyably but prefer gunpla style kits because I find them a lot easier, and safer (I've never managed to become sick or injured while working on a gundam kit). my comment was more along the lines of I don't like the idea of BANDAI making a static model. my first thought when I hear bandai and stating aircraft model together is there EX series, which I dislike. maybe Maybe if they turned out more along the lines of their hard graph kits but I'm not overwhelmingly optimistic. my other thought is that if it was a fighter mode only kit, that would kind of be a big f**k you to everyone who likes battroid mode (like myself). I don't usually build macross models because I prefer battroid mode, all the toys I have are displayed in battroid mode 80-90 percent of the time. I want a large scale, anime accurate battroid, not a fighter.

I think the Hunley could operate fully submerged but not very long, tiny volume of internal air and all.