Russian weapons pack v1.0

[nyles 11]

I know what you mean, Blake. And I also know it makes perfect sense, but I still think it's somehow wrong compared to the other weapons in the game. I really would love to see a bipod option where mgs, snipers or whichever weapon has one, can deploy this bipod, gets an limited turning angle during that time and an effect similar to Keg's clumsy sway plus improved accuracy. However, until such a feature will be properly implemented I would still prefer to have the RPK without that sway (even with undeployed bipod, so it makes sense ).

A working bipod feature kinda like with Day of Defeat or Americas Army would be great already, however I still would prefer it the way that the player plus the weapon turns around the screw thread where the bipod is attached to the weapon instead of the whole player model turning on the spot like usual. This prone M2 addon on the tripod from fortress ofp is one example how I would like to see it work. I fear though, That this would not be possible to achieve.

Maybe I'm fighting windmills here though, it's up to Kegetys anyways. Still, the above mentioned is how 'I' would like to see it work.

[Abrams 0]

Cool texturies but i found a little bug....

in RPG-7V when he on my back it`s little wings from rocket....

But all addons are really good!

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Abrams @ Aug. 06 2002,23:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cool texturies but i found a little bug....

in RPG-7V when he on my back it`s little wings from rocket....<span id='postcolor'>

Yes thats mentioned in the v1.1 fixes list I posted earlier...

[Vikingo 0]

Hi Kegetys!

Just read this in other post:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> As for other bugs I've only noticed that sometimes when the AI is carrying the RPG on their shoulder occassionally it's actually loaded with a rocket on the front.  But it still looks cool, so I don't really consider it to be a bug.  <span id='postcolor'>

ohh No bug! That is the thing I love ! : that the RPG always stay visible with the launcher while it's on the shoulders. Looks great and so powerful! Please it can be posible in next version? Now when the soldier selects the launcher the rocket appears right there and I think it can be better if you have the rocket loaded so that "auto load" when the launcher is selected will don't happens... And only when the ammo is depleted the launcher stay empty.. mmm maybe I'm asking to much =) But please reply me if it's possible... Thanks!

[kegetys 2]

Version 1.1 now available.... http://ofp.kege.cjb.net

[nyles 11]

mhh, yay, the optical glichtes are gone and the scoped aks seem perfect now compared to the other aks.

however, there is one thing though which I really dislike about this pack: the rpg-7 launch sound. In flashpoint, every missile launcher, regardless of being east or west, anti-air or anti-tank, always uses the same launching sound. I would really like to see (hear actually) the standard sound for that like in 1.0. This new sound does not really blend in with the rest of the game, and for me at least, makes the weapon less appealing. It's like with all those M16 based addons which use different firing sounds than the original m16/xms/etc.. making them hard to accept as proper addons as well. Please, for the next version just use the default launch sound.

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Nyles @ Aug. 07 2002,01:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">however, there is one thing though which I really dislike about this pack: the rpg-7 launch sound. next version just use the default launch sound. <span id='postcolor'>

Cant please everybody

[Blake 0]

Nyles, the RPG-7 is totally different weapon than the disposable rocket launchers in OFP. LAW and RPG are OK to use the same sound because they basically work the same way. RPG-7 is a different weapon and I find it annoying if it uses the same sound as other rocket launchers. Not everything is necessary to maintain OFP 'integrity'

[Nagual 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Nyles @ Aug. 07 2002,00:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This new sound does not really blend in with the rest of the game, and for me at least, makes the weapon less appealing. It's like with all those M16 based addons which use different firing sounds than the original m16/xms/etc.. making them hard to accept as proper addons as well.<span id='postcolor'>

Opflash would be a very sterile place if things had to conform to set sound scheme. A custom sound is one of the things that makes good addons good, as it is different, it adds-on to and expands the current state of things, and if it reflects the real world counterpart, then it is very appropriate.

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Goeth[kyllikki] @ Aug. 06 2002,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Aug. 06 2002,075)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thanks for making the RPK's a little less clumsy.  I appreciate that because while they look great, I hardly used them because I kept getting killed in close combat where I couldn't swing them onto a target quick enough and would get shot.  I really wish that effect was removed entirely or at least greatly minimized because it really puts you at a great disadvantage compared to a regular AK armed soldier.<span id='postcolor'>

I don´t agree. Clumsy=good. I think it´s main use is squad´s support weapon, so don´t go to close combat, let the regular

rifleman do the dirty job and give support fire for them.

<span id='postcolor'>

I used to operate a squad automatic weapon (SAW) and I can tell you that without a doubt that it is AWESOME as a close combat weapon. I'd take it any day over an M16 for close quarters combat simply because you have a large amount of ammo meaning you don't have to worry about your clip going empty in the middle of a fierce, fast paced assault just as you turn a corner and find yourself facing an opponent. In addition a weapon of this type generally has a good fire rate making it suitable for hip shooting while on the move and for spraying rooms or windows where snipers are located. Such a weapon can very rapidly put fire on target, which is far from the case with Kegetys's RPK in it's first version. I haven't tried the 1.1 version yet but I hope that the effect is at least reduced. I understand what he's trying to do, but because it effects how the weapon handles in the upright position as well, it just gives you a great disadvantage compared to the other weapons. Personally I'd rather see a tiny bit more recoil on it instead to keep it from becoming a "super weapon". At least the greater recoil won't get you killed in CQB. In the prone position however it should be rock steady and in that position I would think the "clumsiness" feeling might be a little bit more appropriate but as of now there is no way to seperate that from the way the weapon handles in the upright position.

Anyhoo...it's Keg's decision on how to finalize the RPK, but if the "clumsy" effect is still bad I'll probably not use the weapon except to arm the AI with it because it looks very nice. But I like like a weapon that I can transition onto targets rapidly. Even on the SAW (which has a stiff bipod that doesn't bend much) in the prone position you can still transition to different targets quickly by simply sliding it in the dirt or lifting it up slightly and moving it to the direction you want it pointed at. In real life, bringing a weapon into action and on target in combat or in a combat training situation, is not done in a slow smooth manner (unless you're a sniper taking his time with a shot). It is done in a very violent and rapid manner where a slow reaction time can get you killed...much as how it does on OFP, which is why I was against the "clumsy effect". Again greater recoil is also unrealistic, but given the choice I'd take more recoil then getting killed so easily when firing the RPK's. If the recoil is the same as the M60 or PK I'd have no trouble making excellent use of it for boths suppressive area fire and for more accurate short bursts.

Anyhoo...I'm off to go try out the new version of the weapon pack.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Abrams 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Aug. 07 2002,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Version 1.1 now available.... http://ofp.kege.cjb.net<span id='postcolor'>

now great thx Keg!

[deadmoroz 0]

Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good

[Abrams 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,21:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <span id='postcolor'>

then you din`t know how to fire

I need 2 rockets to disale Abrams

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Abrams @ Aug. 07 2002,19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,210)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <span id='postcolor'>

then you din`t know how to fire

I need 2 rockets to disale Abrams <span id='postcolor'>

Also depends on difficulty setting...

Cadet = more easily destroyed vehicles.

[deadmoroz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Aug. 09 2002,10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Abrams @ Aug. 07 2002,19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

then you din`t know how to fire

I need 2 rockets to disale Abrams <span id='postcolor'>

Also depends on difficulty setting...

Cadet = more easily destroyed vehicles.<span id='postcolor'>

i always play Veteran

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,19:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <span id='postcolor'>

In real life it would take several RPG's to disable an Abrams. Abrams has ERA and composite armor which are not easily defeated.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 09 2002,17:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,190)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <span id='postcolor'>

In real life it would take several RPG's to disable an Abrams.  Abrams has ERA and composite armor which are not easily defeated.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed. There is a big difference betwene rocket propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles.

[PowerHour 0]

Very Nice Weapon Pack Kegety!!! I gave them all a try and now look forward to making a few missions with them.

I would not be surprised to see these as official addons.

Don't get me wrong but if you made a Russian/American weapons pack addon (Russian already done) I think BIS would be in touch with you lol ,if they haven't been already..

All's good...Thanx

PowerHour

[kegetys 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PowerHour @ Aug. 09 2002,20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kegety<span id='postcolor'>

once again the name of this mystical person pops up... who is he?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ Aug. 09 2002,17:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

In real life it would take several RPG's to disable an Abrams.  Abrams has ERA and composite armor which are not easily defeated.<span id='postcolor'>

The Abrams has composite armour but not ERA. Most of the modern Soviet tanks have ERA and their current version (Kontakt-5) is about 15 years ahead of the NATO one.

And yes, attacking a modern tank with an RPG or LAW or anything with a HEAT warhead is suicide, so don't try it at home kids

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadmoroz @ Aug. 07 2002,19:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why does RPG-7 so weak?

In reallife It is very powerful antitank weapon(but not only, because it also has deadly fragmentation anâ thermabolic warheads)

I need 6 or 7 rockets to destroy abrams. it is not good <span id='postcolor'>

In real life the RPG-7 will barely scratch the paint of a M1 Abrams tank. It will not even penetrate the top armor according to some M1 tankers I've talked to.

The rear armor I don't know about, but I suspect that the rear is likewise fairly heavily armored.

The Iraqi's for example tried all kinds of strategies to try and destroy the M1s including using Reverse slope tactics to hit the rear of the tanks but none were destroyed. Only a few were disabled. With an RPG the best you could hope for is to damage optics or blow off the treads or one of the wheels.

You *might* be able to destroy one with a top attack from a building for example if you were able to hit one of the hatches on the top where the armor is thinner. But the RPG is not known for pinpoint accuracy and firing any rocket from a building is risky if you don't have proper ventilation so it would require a bit of luck to destroy an M1 in that manner.

So if the the RPG-7 was realistic in OFP, you would not be able to destroy an M1 tank at all with it unless you got a lucky hit like on the turret ring.

However against tanks that don't use advanced composite armor the latest generation of RPG-7 rockets are deadly as they have tandem warheads designed to defeat reactive armor. So they'll destroy T-72 and T-80 tanks.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Eviscerator 0]

well there are a few vulnerable points on a tank, the tracks are the most obvious or you ould always put the rpg down the turret

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Aug. 09 2002,20:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However against tanks that don't use advanced composite armor the latest generation of RPG-7 rockets are deadly as they have tandem warheads designed to defeat reactive armor.  So they'll destroy T-72 and T-80 tanks.  <span id='postcolor'>

I would not bet any money on that. Especially not against Kontakt-3 and later layered versions of Russian ERA. Not only that but the warhead is waaay to small to do any real damage against a tank. Even without ERA we are talking about 250 mm steel on average (T-80) and about 500 mm on the turret (I think I remember the values correctly, I'll try to dig up some reference).

My conclusion would be that the RPG-7 would do more damage to an Abrams then to a T-80 or T-72, but in all cases it would do no serious damage. The RPG-7's main task is to take out APC's and soft targets like trucks and so on.

.....

Anyway, this is supposed to be a discussion of Kegetys russian weapons, so don't do like I just did, but try to keep it on-topic

[RedStorm 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Aug. 09 2002,19:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PowerHour @ Aug. 09 2002,203)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kegety<span id='postcolor'>

once again the name of this mystical person pops up... who is he?    <span id='postcolor'>

Kegtetys is also a good one

[PowerHour 0]

Forgot the "s".. Compliment still stands. Man..