Chronocidal

Heheh.. well, all dreams of a battroid mode aside, there really is no reason for one today. But gerwalk mode.. well, we're closer to that than some people may think, and frankly, gerwalk seems to me like a heck of a lot better solution to VTOL than what we've come up with so far. With two engines to control stability, it would probably be a lot more stable in hover than current planes. But things are advancing at a rapid pace, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a gerwalk type transformation in the coming years. If anyone's seen how the new F-35 JSF does a vertical takeoff, then you probably know what I mean. The first thing I thought of when I saw that engine bend 90 degrees downward was "GERWALK! GERWALK!!!" Granted, they're only bending the afterburner can down, not bending the engine in the middle like Valks do. But it's a start, and if they have the technology to bend the engine down like that, and swivel it all around electronically to stabilize the hover like I saw (think foot/ankle joint), gerwalk can't be that far away.

Hmm... well, although they don't say it, Gundam W is involved in there too.. that's Wing Gundam in the front. Considering that series only got really popular in the US (I heard it did poorly in Japan, correct me if I'm wrong) it might give them reason to release it in the US.

I can't tell for sure though, what's the big black thing in the background? It looks kinda like one of the mechs from G-Gundam, although it's too covered up to tell.

Heheh... pretty nice I have an older version of X-Plane, But I just got utterly frustrated with the lack of visual detail in the program. I was okay with the older versions, but in the most bass-ackwards "improvement" I've ever seen, the newer versions compressed all the aircraft textures into a single 1024*1024 texture map, with pre-set areas for each aircraft part, where the old version had allowed a separate map of that size for each part alone. It's a disaster, resulting in really terrible resolution on parts that are given small areas on the texture. I tended to get creative with part usage to allow more variety in the visual model, such as using fuel tanks as parts of the fuselage, and using a big texture on them to get some nice detail.. but when the tanks got assigned a 64*128 area on the texture, it ruined the idea of using them for detail. I had a really nice VF-1 in there once, but it got ruined when the new version wrapped the textures around wrong, and shrank them to microscopic sizes.

In the world of flight sims, you've got two major competitors in the "pure sim" arena: MS Flight Sim, and X-Plane. To put it bluntly, X-Plane is ugly, and the interface and graphics are way behind the times, while MS Flight Sim is incredibly beautiful at times, with high quality graphics abounding, and a very user friendly interface. But then again, MS Flight Sim's flight models are entirely separate from the graphics models, and they can be a pain to tweak correctly, while X-Plane is used professionally to design and test REAL aircraft, since the physical flight calculations it does are above and beyond anything MSFS ever does. It's mostly a decision between visual accuracy and physical accuracy. If you like watching sunsets from 20,000 feet, get MSFS2004. If you want to test out a new design for a private plane, get X-Plane.

LEGO. Nuff said.

Eh, as dorky and ridiculous as those are, they are cute.. besides, after the uber-goodness that is the new Non-FX X-Wing, I think they've earned a little break from reality. If LucasPhlegm wasn't so darn copyright happy, this thing would be a great recasting candidate.

Well, it is taking a hideous amount of time, but I don't think I blame them.. the YF-19's gotta be one of the most complex designs in Macross, of not THE most complex. The fuselage literally has to fold over on itself into a pretzel shape to transform, and it's gotta play havoc with the proportions. If they're making it based on that custom model, it'll probably take a while to get it up to playable standards.. that thing looked pretty fragile.

Sorry to take so long, took a while to get the wing structure looking good, but I think I've got it working now... This model doesn't have any of the actual mechanisms for moving the flaps, but from what I've seen, this is approximately how they mount.

Hmm.. is there a statistic somewhere that says how many Tomcats were lost to spins?

I just finished reading something about one Tomcat NASA had some fun with.. they added canards to the nose, and changed the avionics somewhat.. somehow they linked the roll control with the rudder control in the flight computers, and it made the plane able to stay stable at about 70 degrees AOA. Don't know how that compares to the standard Tomcat though.

Hmm.. what kind of limits does the engine have? Polycount, and texture size especially.. because if this game could handle some of the fancy 3d models that've been made, you'd have one beautiful Macross game on your hands.

Also, considering this program's set in modern day times, why not do a Macross Zero scenario? Maybe tell the story of the Unification War, and end with the beginning of SDF Macross? Should be easy to find a Tomcat for that game if it's easy to mod, so you've got a lot of the stuff done already that way.

Yeah, I've been having the same problem on my CG Tomcat model.. I just figured it out though.. if you look at the top of a Tomcat's wing, there are small breaks in the spoiler that are raised up slightly..two per section on the 3 sectioned flap. Those are the places where the flaps are mounted... they had to leave cutouts in the spoilers and upper eyebrow door to allow clearance around the wing sections. I don't know where those sections would be in the VF-1. You may need to just find a good place to do it, like between spoilers, or flap sections, something that looks like a likely place for there to be a wing structure support, and then add those supports to the back of the wing to glue the flaps to. When I get the model done, I'll post a picture of what I mean.

Hmmm.. looks good.. On the subject of a Tomcat's flaps, I found a pretty nice diagram of exactly what they do. I'm attempting to build a high-detail Flight Sim model of an F-14, cause I've never seen one that actually did these flaps right (understandable though.. OY! so many panels to animate...>_<) So far I have the cove door, and eyebrow door as one piece each, but I'll need to split them so I have a place for the actual sections that hold the flaps on.. sheesh. it's like the wing splits into two sections, then forms two separate airfoils. O_O

Sorry if the image is too big, I can reduce it more, but the text becomes pretty hard to read at 800 pixels wide.

Whoops... k, thanks, I stand corrected.

Heh.. yeah, if you can afford it.. and, somehow I don't think they'd be able to make something THAT big... I didn't see a size reference, but those samples would have better detail if they were in a large scale.

Actually, that's pretty sweet. I was thinking of doing something like that, but don't know enough yet about making my own instruments.

Ooooooh... pretty... Nothing to be ashamed of there, those lights look great. So, those nacelles ARE big enough for a flourescent bulb. I'm gonna have to think about lighting that one....

You're right though, most lit toys never look decent, simply because the bulbs don't distribute light well. The early Ent-E toy was hideous for that, you could see the bulbs, and since they used white bulbs in a light red engine piece, they glowed almost yellow-orange. Same for the Bandai kits.. as good as that ridged clear stuff actually conducts light, it still doesn't give an even glow, and the deflector looked pretty bad.. I added some clear blue cellophane, and a few layers of wax paper to diffuse the light more, and it helped, but it's still far from perfect.

Actually, apparently there's now a much cheaper way to get a decent Ent-refit... Art Asylum, the people responsible for the Enterprise series toys, got a hold of the rights to release a toy of the Ent-A..It's almost as detailed as the Bandai kit, plus 2-3 inches longer, for about $50 less. I've seen a bunch on Ebay, but none in stores yet. Rumor has it they've also acquired the CGI model of the Enterprise-E used in Nemesis, and are using it directly through CAD programming to make the molds for a new toy of that ship that'll be much more accurate than the Ertl kit, and much more affordable than the Bandai one. The best news about these is that they'll be very sturdy, since they're made to be played with, and, from the pictures I've seen, the toy Ent-A actually has the panels printed on it just like the Bandai one. Here's an Ebay auction with a few pictures, but nothing really big...Art Asylum Enterprise

As far as stencils go though, I once made a texture set for a computer model of the Enterprise-A, so I know a lot of the panel lines by heart.. It'd be pretty easy to make a simple stencil set you could print out on the computer... wouldn't be the highest quality of course, but it might suffice.

EDIT: Correction, the toy doesn't have the panels painted on, I think they're molded in different textures. Still will probably give the same type of effect in the light though.

Hmm.... I'm thinking the ones near the feet are verniers. The ones on the gear doors are probably lights like on the VF-1 though.

Hmm.. one other purpose I've realized that the head serves in fighter mode...it may stick out a little, but it partially streamlines those big blocky shoulders. Those things would cause such turbulence, it'd be ridiculous without something to direct the airflow around them.

Well, personally I'm pretty skeptic of what they show.. it's plenty detailed, but they also don't show how big the stuff is, or how strong the material is.. it might not work well to make model kits out of.. besides that, apparently, they want proof that you own the copyrights to the stuff before they build it for you... so, that right there probably eliminates 90% of the stuff people here would want to make. In my case, there's only a few things I'd really want, and almost all of them are either Macross or Star Wars related, both of which they'd probably refuse to do. I've got a couple of original designs, but they don't interest me as much as the other stuff.

One thing I think this would be great for is making replacement parts for model kits. Say you want to replace a small part of a kit, or add something, like custom missiles or whatnot.. you could make it, and have them send you the stuff, and you could add it to your model. But reproducing a whole kit this way would probably be incredibly expensive.

Oh, it's not that I'm having problems with rudder pedals... it's just that I wish it came with them.. I can't afford a separate set at the moment. I've had to make do with the rudder switch, but it works decently enough. Don't have room for the pedals anyhow.

Heheh.. on that note, I've got to share something.. I know this came up a while ago, but you'd never guess what I found while looking for an old set of Tomcat schematics...

Proof that they did make a Jolly Roger version.

Oooh.. I'm gonna have to include some of these schemes when I release my flight sim models...

Btw, If you need any YF-19 references, I've got oodles... I downloaded a ton of images to look at when I made my FS model.

Heheh.. Well, my Suncom sticks went bad wayyy before their time (Stinks too.. had a perfect F-18 cockpit replica in those things... but they had serious bad manufacturing problems, the cords broke from the inside. Windows XP won't recognize non-USB joystick stuff anymore anyway.), and the only other stick/throttle combo I could find was the Thrustmaster Cougar, and I didn't have the spare $250 to buy that. So far, the X-45's been the best stick I've owned. I just wish it had an option for rudder pedals.

As for playing "tag" or fighting in FS2002, I think that's a no... You get within about 200 feet of another plane, and the sim registers a collision. I tried tailing a 747 once, and found that out. Besides, there's no AI to control aircraft for dogfighting in that program. Best you could probably do is turn off collisions, and simply go at it with another player over a lan or internet.

Hmmm... You know, as much as I'd love to see the YF-23 made into a replacement for the Tomcat, something about that deal makes me think it'd get fugly-fied in the process, and ruin the pristine view of it I have... same for the bomber variant. There's a part of me that just wants it to remain a legend, rather than end up as another disaster of naval modification like the YF-17. If they do make a bomber out of it, I'll be very happy that Northrop finally is getting some business, but I hope they don't change the design too much.. there's only so much you can do to a design like that before ruining it.

You know what I'd really like to see? The return of a dedicated interceptor for the Air Force. The last one I know of was the F-106...beautiful plane... all it did was intercept stuff. No worries about attacking ground targets, it had a dedicated air-to-air radar, and that was all it needed. Yeah, the F-22 will be good at air-to-air intercept.. but not as good as a dedicated interceptor. See, my dream would be to see the YF-23 re-introduced as a strict dogfighter/interceptor. Again, emphasis on dream. But imagine if it could be adapted into a next generation quick response fighter. With it's speed, it could be ideal for the intercept role. Not gonna happen, of course, but it's fun to dream.

SWEET MOTHER OF GHANDI! I think I just found myself a present for my 20th birthday.. Ertl, you can just kiss my big fat... umm... ok, so I'm underweight.

Wow.. ok, saving up now. That's just beautiful. Of course, with a kit like this, you just have to hang it up. I'd like to see how big a stand you'd need for this sucker...O_O!

You know, at that size, it's just asking to have every window drilled out, and filled with clear plastic.. and at this size, you could probably light the whole thing up, and film your own version of the movie.

Also, one other good thing about the size... they made the pylons thick enough to add some nice metal rods in there to support the engines.. stupid Ertl.. I must've broken those under-supported pylons upwards of a dozen times.