Longer viewdistance does have it's disadvantage

[dayglow 2]

Well I'm back playing through the original campaign after I installed Resistance and enjoying the new features like the increase in view distance. I've cranked mine up to 2000m and was enjoying the vistas, but found it can effect gameplay. I am up the the Robert Hammer missions in the tanks and in the mission where you have to defend Duran from an assualt. There is a boarder zone their with AT soldiers you're not supposed to cross and in the first part of the mission you are supposed to take on these BMPs. The only problem is with the increase in view distance T-80s on the other side of the boarder area around 1600m away, outside of the orginal game's view distance are taking pot shots at me and killing me. At first I didn't understand how I was taking damage until I died and it zoomed all the way across the bay to teh T-80 Guess the increase in view distance isn't always a good thing.

COLINMAN

[ralphwiggum 6]

Murphy's law: If your enemy is in your range, you are in his too

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Oct. 01 2002,08:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Murphy's law: If your enemy is in your range, you are in his too <span id='postcolor'>

I believe its: All that can go wrong, will go wrong

or something similar

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Murphy's Laws of Combat

Murphy was a grunt

[InqWiper 0]

I really dont think that the tanks can see longer if you inbcrease the viewdistance. The tank radars can see up to about 1500 meters and thats how they spotted you, with theire radars...

[Gaswell 1]

I got the same feeling as DayGlow - I had to adjust to a lot longer engagement ranges. IMHO it made for much more interesting combat, since I now actually have to read the map and avoid clear lines of fire.

Also, for the same reason it seems like armor are much more effective as "mobile long-range direct-fire artillery support" when I'm playing as infantry squad leader and have a few tanks/BMPs to put my guys in.

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InqWiper @ Oct. 02 2002,03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really dont think that the tanks can see longer if you inbcrease the viewdistance. The tank radars can see up to about 1500 meters and thats how they spotted you, with theire radars...<span id='postcolor'>

Well when I played it orginially you don't die in the first stage of the mission from tanks that are stationed to be part of the last stage. People would have been complaining when the game came out b/c tanks that were 600-800m outside of the viewdistance were constantly hitting them.

COLINMAN

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ Oct. 02 2002,12:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InqWiper @ Oct. 02 2002,03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really dont think that the tanks can see longer if you inbcrease the viewdistance. The tank radars can see up to about 1500 meters and thats how they spotted you, with theire radars...<span id='postcolor'>

Well when I played it orginially you don't die in the first stage of the mission from tanks that are stationed to be part of the last stage. People would have been complaining when the game came out b/c tanks that were 600-800m outside of the viewdistance were constantly hitting them.

COLINMAN<span id='postcolor'>

Originally you were using a different version of the game. (1.2 or 1.46) In 1.75 many things have changed besides viewDistance option. Although it is possible your veiwdistance is considered by enemies in 1.75, this does not prove it.

EDIT: * The complexity of a weapon is inversely proportional to the IQ of the weapon's operator.

that's a good one

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Oct. 02 2002,19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Originally you were using a different version of the game. (1.2 or 1.46)  In 1.75 many things have changed besides viewDistance option.  Although it is possible your veiwdistance is considered by enemies in 1.75, this does not prove it.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, if you change viewdistance if affects AI (both friendly and enemy) as well, including tank IR scanner (and even including airplane/chopper radar).

[bn880 5]

That's very good, thank you Suma.

That is what I call proof.

[Jo Man Dragon 0]

Well, I must say, from now on I like Resistance even more

[dayglow 2]

Now all I need is a system that can handle the 5km max view distance and armour conflict could get much more intersting. Engagements can take place at realistic distances instead of the in-close knife fights that are the usual fare in OFP. Imagine spotting a target 4.8km off in the distance, not quite in engagement range, then using the terrain to your advantage to move into a flanking position. Tatics have got a boost here

COLINMAN

[Spy17 1]

A Problem in that original campaign mission is that you are in the commander position and the gunner always fails to hit the targets at that distance (you can not change to gunner position)... this killed the fun for me in that mission. But otherwise I love these longe range engagements now! For example this old first single player tank mission is verry nice now!

[InqWiper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, if you change viewdistance if affects AI (both friendly and enemy) as well, including tank IR scanner (and even including airplane/chopper radar).

<span id='postcolor'>

NIce

[karynova 0]

Not true, whenever I play a tank mission and I am the team leader, I always play as gunner because my reaction time is always much better than the AI.

I simply order the gunner to get out, tell him to hold position so he doesn't try and follow us, then I switch to the gunner position. Because the gunner outranks the driver, I can still give him orders.

[Kermit 0]

However, you do not have radar and the driver still sucks. What I do is tell everyone in my tank to get out and get into a support vehicle (usually a repair truck) to keep them safe, then I drive the tank until I spot enemies. When I see enemies, I quickly switch to gunner's position (you can do this without getting out of the tank as long as the tank is stopped and there is no one besides you in it) and fire. True, you still don't get to use the radar and there is always a delay. Also, you cannot stop very quickly when going down a hill, so you are helpless until you reach the bottom of the hill. But it works.

[John C Flett 0]

Didn't have too many problems with the armour ( prbably like it more actually ) but the mission where your alone in the woods has become an absolute nightmare.

[JJonth Cheeky Monkey 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ Oct. 02 2002,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now all I need is a system that can handle the 5km max view distance and armour conflict could get much more intersting. Engagements can take place at realistic distances instead of the in-close knife fights that are the usual fare in OFP. Imagine spotting a target 4.8km off in the distance, not quite in engagement range, then using the terrain to your advantage to move into a flanking position. Tatics have got a boost here

COLINMAN<span id='postcolor'>

You can set it to 5 km, just put the bar up to 5000, or is it set in some gay game distance and not in meters

[Ether Dragon 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kermit @ Oct. 06 2002,22:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, you cannot stop very quickly when going down a hill, so you are helpless until you reach the bottom of the hill.  But it works.<span id='postcolor'>

Try turning the vehicle perpendicular to the slope, or even spin completely around and turbo uphill to slow you down faster. It seems to me that they improved the power of vehicles on the uphill, but the brakes are still woefully inadequate. I found that turning perpendicular is probably the best route. You'll still slide, as well as moving forward in the new direction, but you will stop on the slope rather than at the bottom of it. =)

From personal experience, I can tell you that M1 tanks have great brakes for stopping. They have powerful brakes that will bring it to a stop extremely fast (so fast that drivers have to practice soft braking techniques to avoid throwing or otherwise harming the other occupants.) The M1's driving controls are a cross between a motorcycle's and a car's. The driver uses a handlbar similar to a motorcycle for steering and acceleration. Braking uses a foot pedal. Shifting is a small knob set between the handlebars that you simply slide between gears similar to what you see in a car with automatic transmission.

APC's and M60's are less capable, and I assume that the Soviet vehicles are in much the same catagory. They all require the driver to pull back on the two control handles - and the driver needs to be pretty strong to enact a fast stop; especially on a down slope. None of the tracked vehicles should suffer from sliding, however, and once stopped the driver shouldn't need a lot of effort to counter rolling down slope. Most of the vehicles I drove in the service had a brake lock, in fact.

The only time sliding can be an issue is if a tracked vehicle is on thick mud or perhaps an icey road. Anyway, it's been my long hope that they'll eventually fix the vehicle models to more closely mirror their actual counterpart's. As it stands, they're woefully underpowered both in acceleration and braking. At least I'm no longer seem to be rolling downhill while trying to go full power uphill.

[dayglow 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cheeky monkey @ Oct. 07 2002,11:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ Oct. 02 2002,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now all I need is a system that can handle the 5km max view distance and armour conflict could get much more intersting. Engagements can take place at realistic distances instead of the in-close knife fights that are the usual fare in OFP. Imagine spotting a target 4.8km off in the distance, not quite in engagement range, then using the terrain to your advantage to move into a flanking position. Tatics have got a boost here

COLINMAN<span id='postcolor'>

You can set it to 5 km, just put the bar up to 5000, or is it set in some gay game distance and not in meters<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, it's 5km, but it isn't playable on my system I like playing at a higher fps than 5. I usually have it set around 1.5-2, depending on how complex the mission is.

COLINMAN

[Ether Dragon 0]

Oh yeah, no tank has radar. Under the best of conditions during combat, the tank's only way to spot an enemy is through the very limited view of periscopes or via the gunner's scope.

[Mister Frag 0]

You are right about the radar aspect. However, modern tanks, IFVs and APCs have thermal sights that can be used to fight at night or see through dust and smoke. They don't care what the heat source is, i.e. whether it is a hot engine compartment of a tank that was shut down hours ago, or some soldiers trying to hide in thick brush.

[Kermit 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ether Dragon @ Oct. 07 2002,14:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh yeah, no tank has radar.  Under the best of conditions during combat, the tank's only way to spot an enemy is through the very limited view of periscopes or via the gunner's scope.<span id='postcolor'>

Do you mean in real life, or in Operation Flashpoint? The Operation Flashpoint tanks have radar. Do you mean this is unrealistic?

[MarcusJClifford 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ether Dragon @ Oct. 07 2002,19:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kermit @ Oct. 06 2002,22:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, you cannot stop very quickly when going down a hill, so you are helpless until you reach the bottom of the hill.  But it works.<span id='postcolor'>

Try turning the vehicle perpendicular to the slope, or even spin completely around and turbo uphill to slow you down faster.  It seems to me that they improved the power of vehicles on the uphill, but the brakes are still woefully inadequate.  I found that turning perpendicular is probably the best route.  You'll still slide, as well as moving forward in the new direction, but you will stop on the slope rather than at the bottom of it.  =)

From personal experience, I can tell you that M1 tanks have great brakes for stopping.  They have powerful brakes that will bring it to a stop extremely fast (so fast that drivers have to practice soft braking techniques to avoid throwing or otherwise harming the other occupants.)  The M1's driving controls are a cross between a motorcycle's and a car's.  The driver uses a handlbar similar to a motorcycle for steering and acceleration.  Braking uses a foot pedal.  Shifting is a small knob set between the handlebars that you simply slide between gears similar to what you see in a car with automatic transmission.

APC's and M60's are less capable, and I assume that the Soviet vehicles are in much the same catagory.  They all require the driver to pull back on the two control handles - and the driver needs to be pretty strong to enact a fast stop; especially on a down slope.  None of the tracked vehicles should suffer from sliding, however, and once stopped the driver shouldn't need a lot of effort to counter rolling down slope.  Most of the vehicles I drove in the service had a brake lock, in fact.

The only time sliding can be an issue is if a tracked vehicle is on thick mud or perhaps an icey road.  Anyway, it's been my long hope that they'll eventually fix the vehicle models to more closely mirror their actual counterpart's.  As it stands, they're woefully underpowered both in acceleration and braking.  At least I'm no longer seem to be rolling downhill while trying to go full power uphill.<span id='postcolor'>

Or you could just download patch 1.85 when it becomes available

From - Post about patch 1.85

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

- Fixed: Tanks no longer slide aside when standing on the hills.

- Fixed: Tanks jumping after getting in, especially on the hill.

- Fixed: Tank braking singnificantly faster.

<span id='postcolor'>

[suma 8]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kermit @ Oct. 08 2002,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you mean in real life, or in Operation Flashpoint?  The Operation Flashpoint tanks have radar.  Do you mean this is unrealistic?<span id='postcolor'>

OFP tanks do not have any radar, they have IR scanner.