Chronocidal

Actually yeah, I didn't at all expect the Kobayashi Maru scene to be so... well, blatantly obvious. I was waiting for Spocklar (sorry, that just fits too well for me not to use it, and it's better than Sylock) to have a little thought bubble appear over his head going "WTF HAX!" I was hoping his hack job of the simulation would be more about finding an exploit in the program, rather than an outright rewrite (although, history did say he rewrote it). I was expecting something more like a case where some random action would produce ridiculous results that let him win.. like, mashing the shield activation button so fast that you could beam the crew through the shields, while still deflecting enemy weapons, or some other crazyness.. maybe just confusing the enemy AI by broadcasting in Klingon. *shrugs* The scene was hilarious, but I expected the cheat to be a little more subtle. That also might have played better with Spock's reactions as well.. as it was, he was just offended that he blatantly broke the rules. If Kirk had found some flaw to exploit, it could've opened a much deeper wound in Spock's ego, having thought that he programmed a completely unwinnable scenario.

While I can definitely say that I fully enjoyed the movie (especially in IMAX ), I have to admit... very few movies I've ever seen have left my brain in such an unsettled state. Why? Because I'm someone who loves the complexities of cause and effect chains... and ever since seeing this, my brain has been nearly completely occupied with the thought of what this reboot has done. Anyway, great movie.. the opening sequence was particularly epic I think (though the rest kind of struggled to live up to that early bit I think) and the character's key lines were well worked out to fit without seeming obtrusive. Many good laughs to be had, and I have to agree, McCoy was probably the best cast one of them all. Now the question is where do they go from here? I actually kind of hope they don't do a series, and reserve it to movies. While a fresh series might be fun, I think rehashing old plots to show how the timeline has changed will do no good to the franchise.

*looks around suspiciously, and waves hand* You want to take off your shirt... On another note, apparently the giant Lego Milennium Falcon is 25% off for a bit.. the shop site currently has it for $375, instead of the usual $500. Now the debate begins... that's enough to get a couple valks... or a friggen HUGE lego thing... decisions, decision..

That does look quite the bargain. If the price is right, I might get a couple... or maybe a full squadron if I get a little nuts (but not until I get my Mac+ 1/60 trio). Honestly.. If I knew anything about recasting, I would love to make a new mold of this sculpt to play around with. The wing mechanism has always been the weakest point of the design for me (apart from the new nose), and I've wanted to seriously rework one of these for ages to have solid wings and accurate engines. Plus, I'd love to play with the paint schemes a bit.. I'd love to have a full Rogue Squadron in the custom markings discussed in the "Bacta War" novel. The only part that worries me about doing that is how I'll ever be able to explain the room full of x-wings to a potential fiancee. Right now, my collection fits in a box that I can hide...

The main reason for separating the nozzles is to get roll control via thrust vectoring, which might not even be possible with the way the feet are right now. The further apart they get, the more rotational moment they'll make when deflected, giving better roll control. However, the further apart they get, the worse yaw instabilities due to thrust variations get. The reason the F-14 was so prone to flat spins was because of how far apart the engines were, combined with the tendency of the engines to stall. You lose thrust on one side, and it'll do nasty things.. think drifting, but in an aircraft.. planes don't like to fly that way.

My personal favorite is the Red Leader one released shortly afterward, but only because I plan on customizing it. The Dagobah one, and all those following it are basically a reworked FX version. The Dagobah version still uses Luke's markings/stickers, but they gutted the electronics, and remolded the fuselage to remove the missile launcher and flight handle. As far as markings go, I think the Red Leader version is the one with the least weathering overall, but I could be wrong. It seemed to have the least number of stickers, which made them easy to remove so I can repaint it. If you're worried about movie accuracy, I'd also recommend looking up spare parts for the original FX version, specifically the nosecone piece.. they child-proofed the original chisel-shaped nosecone when they redesigned these ships, and it looks like it ran into a wall.

I don't wanna get my hopes up, something tells me it might've been a typo... But if we find out this is legit.. I'm gonna drop an epic brick. See.. what's great about 1/48.. it's huge. Which means, there's probably plenty of room to pull off an epic custom perfect transformation. Heck, you could strip down an old 1/48th yammie (provided you want to sacrifice one) and probably transplant the joints straight into it. Model+ratcheting joints= pure awesome.

Lol.. or you could just use english words with way too many syllables. It is pretty common to stretch words over more than one note, but the way songs are phrased can make it hard to sound good doing it, especially if the song was originally written so the notes would be pronounced, rather than slurred.

Umm... holy crap.. THAT GIRL HAS TWO KNEES ON EACH LEG!! I thought there was somethin weird there too... Unless the lower leg valk parts are supposed to be like boots, in which case, ignore me.

Hmm.. I don't know where it was now, but I do remember someone taking a more freeform approach to translating the song. The meanings were all translated well, but they added a lot more of an english style to it.. didn't sound bad at all though, I think it was on youtube somewhere. The link may still be in the fan works forum, if my memory serves me correctly. What they did was basically reword each sentence to have a similar meaning, but to fit the rhythm nearly perfectly. The only part I remember is a bit of the chorus.. think it was a bit like this, but can't swear to it. "Tell me, do you still remember that moment when your eyes first met mine? Tell me, do you still remember, the moment when our fingers intertwined? My journey was just beginning, feeling love for the very first time... Ai shiteru (yep, they swapped the english here for japanese. although I think the english might work a bit better here personally, it was rather creative ) Basically that's how it went, although I think I've altered it on the fly while remembering. It sounded very well thought out, but it did change a lot of the phrasing, and some of the meanings, just to fit into english better. Some parts added a lot of throw away words that don't fit in the original Japanese version, but can be implied in one way or another in English (ie, "Tell me do you still remember?" isn't quite the same as "Do you remember?", but the meaning is similar enough that the added "tell me" and "still" don't hurt it too much, and the number of syllables fits the music once those words are added). Grrr.. now the musical bit of me wants to translate my own version

Give it time, apparently the model format's already been figured out to a point. They can replace geometry, just can't convert the animations yet. Someone posted pics of a Gundam in there in one place. If I can convince myself to spend the money on it, I may see about sticking a few of my Macross models in there. But so far, Ubi's shown little to no interest in actually fixing a lot of the problems that are popping up. I get the distinct impression that Ubi did absolutely NO beta testing on this (especially when it comes to cross platform/hardware testing), and that fan mods are the only hope this game has at this point, at least on the PC. Frankly, for all the bugs people are finding, Ubi should be paying them for beta testing the game for them. The chatter on the Ubi tech support forums has been rather... well, to sum up, it seems about half the posts are about the game not working in one way or another, and the other half are about the multiplayer not working at all.

Good point.. to be honest, I think I would've been much more likely to enjoy this game if they hadn't used any real aircraft. I can't really think of any good comparisons at the moment, but I get the impression that the real aircraft are only there as mascots to sell the game. It's like games that get famous actors, sports figures, etc, to endorse the game, because without that endorsement, the game just wouldn't attract any attention. It might be a fun futuristic shoot-em-up, but using real life aircraft as a selling point kinda ruins it for me, when they don't behave anything like what they should. It's like getting endorsements from companies like Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Porsche, and making an off-road dirt track racing game with their cars. Sure it might be fun, but it easily kills off any suspension of disbelief. I may still give the PC version a go eventually, my brother and I were looking forward to playing this online together. I just hope someone manages to enable all the online features that are currently locked out.

Well, that and any concept of how aircraft are supposed to fly.

Actually, that's one of the serious issues this game has been having on the PC. A good deal of complaints about the demo are from people who can't run the game unless their X52 is unplugged. I got it to work myself, but most people can't. The game tends to do this for a lot of joysticks actually, TM Cougars, X52s (not sure of regular or pro distinctions tho, I have an X52 pro and it worked), and even some Saitek Aviators have been having problems. I agree though, this game isn't meant to be played with a hotas setup, and especially not with pedals. Combination of having no thumbstick to control the view, and no option to throttle up and down simultaneously means that gamepads just have a huge advantage.

Actually, I'm pretty sure they didn't think anything further than "ok, this plane has 2 engines, so it goes faster." Hell, the flight physics belong in X-Wing or Tie Fighter. Banking does nothing, you fly exactly the same whether you're right-side up, upside-down, or rolled sideways. Granted, it simplifies things not having to trim.. but having banking not put you into a gentle turn? You may as well use the rudder alone (which works just fine ). They claim that they did a bunch of research and such, but I have no idea how they actually got the major aircraft manufacturers to sign off on this. They really did no research about the aircraft at all. Just a few: F-16A is actually a C model Their "Mitsubishi F-2" is simply the same F-16C repainted The F-15 "Strike Eagle" is a C model with no FAST packs and a single seat cockpit Their F-15 Active model ditched thrust vectoring (unless they just didn't bother to animate that) You know how the rear stabs work on planes, where they work together for elevator, and opposite for roll? Yeah, they missed that too. (insert lex Luthor voice here)WRONG!! Btw, it's actually pretty obvious that they didn't even touch Ace Combat before making this, since if they had, they may have noticed a few of these things, since AC got them all right. For a while, people were worried that the F-14's wings weren't even going to move, since no one had seen a screenshot with them swept back. Apparently they didn't screw that one up, but I have yet to see any proof, and I'm actually very curious to see what kind of shenanigans they pull with the F-14 versions, or how many of those many control surfaces they actually will bother to animate. I know they skipped the leading edge flaps on the F-16. I know they've figured out how to unlock a lot of extra content and aircraft in the PC demo. I might have to see what else they goofed on, just out of morbid curiousity.

Well, apparently he hasn't played it.. you can't control the camera at all in that mode. It's not fixed, but you are stuck looking at your plane from a mile away, and the camera spins around to keep your target in the view. It's like a target padlock view that you can't turn off even if you WANTED to see what's in front of you.. which, when actually flying, is usually a useful thing. And yeah, them claiming to support joysticks is a crock. It's just made for a gamepad, pure and simple. Unless you happen to own one of the Ace Combat bundle sticks, you're not going to have the right controls to make the game work, and even then, you can't throttle forward and back at the same time, which seems to be required to pull off some maneuver types.

Actually, no, there is absolutely no camera control in limiter off mode. It's stuck like that, and the developers seem to be completely convinced it's the best possible way to play it. All the expert mode does is make it so you can roll the plane, rather than steering left and right automatically. Many people chatting on the developer forums have been questioning whether any of the developers have actually every played an aircraft related game before, and I'd have to agree with them. This game has more in common with something like Freespace or X-wing/Tie Fighter than Ace Combat. All it's missing is lasers, and you'd have purely sci-fi physics. Console players actually may have a big advantage over PC users on this, just for the controls. Unless you're using an Xbox controller, or something similar on your PC, I just don't see a good way to configure the controls to be useful. I was really hopeful that this would be something like Ace Combat on the PC, and finally allow me to use my good HOTAS system, but the control scheme was never meant for a stick and throttle. When you need a thumbstick to control the camera correctly, and some maneuvers require you to press the throttle and brake at the same time (not possible when using an actual throttle), you're just better off using a gamepad. Besides, Saitek sticks like the X52 are causing the game to fail anyway. I'm one of the few who've gotten it to work, and really, it's not worth the effort. I can imagine it might eventually turn out to be a good substitute for Ace Combat on the PC, but if I have to use a gamepad to play it, I might as well go back to Ace Combat, and be rid of the screwy camera system. Right now, Ubi seems dead set on making something to appeal to a different audience than sim fans, and they've definitely succeeded at that, if only by completely pissing off the people who like sims. The arguments on the developer forums have reached absolutely juvenile levels, mostly between people who know something about aircraft (and who realize the problems with the game), and those who don't care a bit about any realism or accuracy, and just want something where they can blow stuff up in something that flies kinda like an airplane (and I use "kinda" in the loosest sense of the word). Basically, comparing any flight sim to HAWX is like comparing something like Gran Turismo to a game like Lego Racers. Same concept (flying/driving), completely different treatment. If you've never played a flight game in your life, yeah, this game might be very fun. But it's a lot to swallow if you have any knowledge of real aircraft. Btw, anyone who wonders what to expect, and whether they did any research on how different planes fly needs to watch this.

To tell the truth, I'm absolutely pissed by their inattention to anything resembling a normal PC control config. They just seem incapable of understanding how PC gamers don't have 3 hands to run the throttle, stick, and MOUSE at the same friggen time. It's like they ported the console version without thinking. Even the game menus just don't make sense on a PC (who the #$%! uses the ESC key to continue??) The camera system is meant to be used as an axis based system, like on a console version with a thumbstick, and assigning it to a hat switch means the camera only snaps to it's maximum range.. meaning, directly above, below, or behind you in exterior view, and above and to the sides in cockpit. And on top of that, you have to "activate" the camera by holding down a button before it'll actually move. Hope you didn't want to fly and look around at the same time. Rudder pedals don't work either, unless you like flying the plane with them entirely (left brake axis controls roll, right brake controls pitch, and the yaw function actually throttles ). I had to unplug my pedals before the plane would stop spinning into the ground from conflicting inputs. The game registers 2 separate joysticks being plugged in, but can't separate the control inputs to do different things. Coupled with all the wonky camera problems and the fact that their flight model is complete crap (no, banking does not put you in a gentle turn, the only way to turn is roll 90 degrees and pull back), I think I'll be passing on this till it hits a bargain bin. Btw, I finally figured out the core of why I hate the assistance off cam, and what made it feel so.. well, just wrong... They claim it's a situational awareness tool.. ok, maybe. But I finally realized what I was doing wrong while using it... I was actually focusing on my target. That situational awareness comes at a price. Yes, you can see your target.. but unless you are also watching YOUR OWN PLANE, you don't know what you're doing. Being inside, and seeing through the pilot's eyes usually gives you a very clear picture of how you're flying (blue is sky, brown is the ground, etc). But with the camera fixed to the world spatial system, you have to keep track of your plane on top of your enemy's. Between that, and an inability to aim, I just hope and pray someone finds a way to either add more cameras to that mode, or disable it entirely. The development team just appears totally inept to me as of now. The game is very pretty, I'll give it that. But under that Ferrari exterior, the engine was salvaged off a broken down moped. Worthless physics, nonsensical dimensions, and nausea inducing disorientation from the camera system. The only thing I see saving this game at this point is the PC modding community.

ok, that alto is gonna give me nightmares... But I agree, the ones above are awesome.

I'd definitely recommend waiting, or at least sticking with the PC version in the hope that a modding community will rise up to fix the problems it has. As is, this game is so full of "wtf are you thinking?" errors, I'm seriously considering skipping it altogether. The more I play this, the more it seems like the demo is pretty much a beta at best, no matter how polished it looks. Just had an interesting experience trying to make sense of the hud view, and whoever designed it has probably never seen how a real hud even works, and has serious issues with what "level" means.. the horizon line is wrong of all things, if you try to level with it, you climb pretty steadily.. combined with the nonsensical units system they seem to be using, the instruments are entirely useless.

Well, for what it does, the program appears to be pretty useful, laying out models flat and all. The problem is how it chooses to break things up. With a little editing, the YF-19 could be a perfect model. The majority of it is just fine, especially the nose structure, and legs, which worked pretty flawlessly. In reality, I just ignored a lot of the smaller tabs, and cut them off if there was enough support around them from larger tabs. The biggest issues I had were with the wings and tails. They worked okay in the end, but some parts had several folds that just can't be made with a single piece. It's like there were supposed to be bits cut out to reshape the part into a curve, but the cutouts didn't happen. The main body had some problems too, but I think that's my fault for not folding something the right direction. The underside is such a complex mess of folds, it wouldn't surprise me if I skipped some step entirely. I'd actually like to see what kind of interface Pep has, just to see if it's possible to pick where seams are made, and maybe resize the tabs it makes.

I do think the Pepakura models could be done well, with a little revision. The biggest problems are the way it breaks down parts, and the way it makes the tabs. Best example of how Pepakura can foul up is the piece meant to be the head laser on the YF-19. I hope you don't mind, but here's a screenshot of that particular part. First problem is, this is the worst possible way to make a box of those proportions. It'd make much more sense to have the folds on the long edges, instead of the tiny ends of the laser. Second problem, the tabs are over twice as big as the panel they need to glue to. Without massive extra folds, that structure will not work. I had this issue quite frequently, and I lost track of how many tabs I had to cut down to near nothing before they fit where they needed to go. Also, one thing I changed quite a bit was the placement of the tabs. The pieces weren't mirrored across the aircraft, and the tabs would be on the top of one wing, and the bottom of the other. It wound up warping the wings pretty bad on my first try. If it's not a problem I may try and update the YF-19 a bit, or at least come up with a list of possible changes, just to solve some of the structural issues, and make it a little more possible to fold. Some of the smaller panels really need to be relocated to other parts before this thing will become very buildable.

Nope, I made sure to change those, they were labeled as knots. And even in metric, those speeds are ridiculous.

*sigh* ... ubi... really?? Well, that does answer the question of why it won't hover... they replaced the thrust vectoring system with an afterburner. What amazes me, especially for a Tom Clancy game, is how many completely .. well, just plain wrong things I keep seeing. For instance.. in the opening cutscene.. do they even know what illuminating a target means? It usually means you're painting a target with a laser designator for homing purposes... and it's not very effective if you attack from the opposite side the laser is pointing at. Also, I keep hearing someone chattering about "select zone whatever".. apparently, it's been completely lost to the ages what that phrase, "select zone 5," even originally meant in Top Gun. That was a Tomcat specific phrase, indicating the 5th stage of the plane's progressive afterburner. In other words, it means to turn tail and run. EDIT: Actually I think I was partly wrong about this. I still think it's being misused for the aircraft (most engines now have continuously throttleable afterburners without zones), but the phrase "select zone 4 and extend" meant to get some range between planes. Also, on the off chance that you actually bother to read your HUD for airspeed, it's obvious they did no research into the actual performance of these planes. Cruising speed in the F-16 (not braking or accelerating) is a whopping TWO THOUSAND KNOTS. Max braking in normal flight only goes down to 1000 knots. That's over 2300 mph in full afterburner, or over Mach 3. Actually using the afterburner, and accelerating level, I got up easily over 3800 knots, or Mach 5.7. Yeah, that's realistic. I dunno which is funnier.. the cruising speed being on a par with the SR-71, or the slowest you can go still being Mach 1.3. I'm hoping against hope that this is just a math error in the code that's multiplying the numbers, and they'll fix it before the final release.. because for a brand so dedicated to military technology in other games, this is just inexcuseable. I dunno.. the more I look at the nuts and bolts of this game, the more I think they have no clue what they're doing. Edit: Oh this one's killer.. so I smack in the ground on purpose to test something.. and the first thing I hear on the comm traffic is "Lead has hit the ground- notify search and rescue."

Hmm, I'll have to agree with you then, I hadn't read about the other options the limiter-off mode was supposed to include. Yah, implementation is really the error there. Maybe they thought all those options would get too complicated for consoles. *shrugs* I'd still love to see the options all available in the PC version. The HUD thing I just noticed today too. I'd been flying behind the plane for a while, and the HUD sucks arse the way they did it. No instruments, no indicators, nothing. And as useful as that lead-point indicator is, they obviously have given up on any kind of realism in that regard. I get the feeling they actually might be just ignoring the HUD because you're supposed to be wearing one of those new fangled tracking helmets. On top of that though, even in an F-16 with a full bubble cockpit, they apparently can't figure out how to let your head turn far enough to look behind you. You just kinda hit a stopping point, and then the view floats awkwardly if you're trying to follow a target. I don't think you can even turn far enough to see your own wingtip. The external camera does it fine, but unless something like a TrackIR activates some kind of expanded field of view, the cockpit view is really getting the short end of the stick in this game. Frankly, I don't care if I am looking at my own headrest.. I still want to look behind me. As for advantages to the PC version.. well, besides the potential for mods and such, PC peripherals for flight games blow consoles out of the water (or at least have in the past). Not only do you have a large variety of stick/throttle/rudder pedal options if you want them (not to mention the ability to configure your controls however you please), but you've even got stuff like head tracking sensors to look around with. Also, personally, I tend to prefer PC game matching systems for hosting/joining over anything on consoles, but that's just me. About the Harrier though.. do you mean they added it, but gave it no VTOL-type capabilities at all? Does it at least fly really slow if you hit the brakes?