Modern usmc weapons

[Liquid_Silence 0]

Earl: You can use removeAllWeapons unit to remove all a units weapons so don't bother

Why would you want to use any other weapons with these Marines?

I can see it in some circumstances, but in most missions they would be using standard issue weapons...i.e. the ones included...

The only use for using other weapons/weapon packs is if the originals are unrealistic, or there is a weapon mission (e.g. M82 SASR or something for a scout/sniper doing a special mission...)

And in the case of </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that every new add-on has to come with 'new' weapons, that means that if you wish to use more than one add-on in a mission/campaign....like, your marines, and someone elses Rangers....you end up doubling up on most of the weapons, where as if the units were released seperatly from the weapons, mission makers could choose which weapons pack to use, requireing less downloading, and smaller addons, avoiding the 'cannot memory map' message...we really don't need more M4's, M249's, M240's, there are dozens of them already available, and many more still being cranked out.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree to an extent...but remember that different services use different weapons and different configurations for the same weapons (for example Force Recon has three items in their M4 SOPMOD kit that aren't in the standard SOCOM one...) so by doing this way you end up enhancing realism...and realism is good

I mean, when this addon comes out I'm gonna delete all the SAW addons and the M40 addon I've got, 'cause I'll have no use for them anymore since the only reason they're there at the moment is so I can't load regular soldiers to simulate Marines I'll have two addon packs doing the job of like three...I may have to wait ages for the d/l (56k ) but I'll still be happy...

EDIT: How are these beautiful creations going btw? (Both the Marines and the weapons )

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suchey @ Feb. 05 2003,04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thats why its good to have them all together...that way if they have the marines they have the rifles too  <span id='postcolor'>

That's true. The BIB Royal Marine teaser that they released has its weapons all in the same .pbo file as the unit. In some ways that's very convenient and keeps people from having to hunt down weapon addons... but it also means that careful attention must be made so that it does not interfere with other weapon addon packs that have the same weapons.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[earl 0]

The plan remains to have the Marines and their guns all in one PBO.

Weapon status - I've started laying out the UV mapping for the M16, and from all the mistakes I've made in the past, I'm finally doing it in an intelligent manner, so it will be clean and easy to create a texture for.

I've altered the models to be more accurate to the actual M5 Rifle RAS, the side rails don't come all the way forward, and the bottom rail is removeable which clears the way for the M203.  Also, it seems that 11-rib panels are the longest made by KAC, so the full length panels I have on the M16s are wrong - I'll make it look two panels during texturing.  Thanks to STGN for pointing that out so politely at ofpec.com forums (which seem to have been hacked..)

Suchey's working away on the marpat - I've been testing the marines and I have to say those Force Recon guys rock!

[Liquid_Silence 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Feb. 05 2003,05:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...but it also means that careful attention must be made so that it does not interfere with other weapon addon packs that have the same weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

That's why we have the OFPEC naming conventions

3 letter tag that is a unique ID for any addon maker...i.e. BAS's is BAS, SelectThis's is STT etc...

If you register a tag and use it for all your addons then you shouldn't run into problems at all

[9mm 0]

There are new ingame shots of Earl's M16s at his site.

[N.o.R.S.u 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (earl @ Feb. 05 2003,07:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The plan remains to have the Marines and their guns all in one PBO.<span id='postcolor'>

If it doesn't need much to do, please split the weapons and marines into two PBOs. I mean if someone wants to use your great weapons with some other units, he also needs the marines even if they aren't used in the mission, because they are all in one PBO. Completely new unit addons like these are usually quite big in file size, and the more megabytes are in addons folder the more RAM game requires. Just a suggestion.

In my opinion there's nothing wrong with the idea that marines use these weapons by default, it's just that the weapons need marines to work .

And those pics at earl's site look really great, keep up the good work .

[9mm 0]

I guess that two pbos in one zip (or whatever you're gonna use), would be the best solution especially if you plan to upgrade either soldiers (maybe desert MARPAT, who knows) or the weapons in further future.

Having two pbos would also allow to use a DKM addonmenager to save some RAM.

[earl 0]

Some (Monday Feb 17) updates if you haven't seen my webpage lately:

These will eventually be overwritten with new stuff, but you can see full images of the latest progress at http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc/

Optic views are in very early stages, but I'm pretty happy with them already. The Trijicon reflex sight has to come down a lot in size, I think it will look better and be more realistic that way.

[blackdog~ 0]

Damned tasty? What is the percentage complete?

[hellfish6 7]

Very accurate iron sight on the M-16. And I like the absence of tunnel vision - I've never met an infantryman who couldn't fire with one eye on the sight and the other eye open as well. Situational awareness.

[tkkivi 0]

These weapons are amazing, im stunned by the quality, good work earl!

Now seeing those frozen piece of so called hands touching that beatiful weapon, is there any possibility that i or we see any new animations for these guns, like the way its holding the gun, or reload animations?

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Feb. 18 2003,09:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very accurate iron sight on the M-16. And I like the absence of tunnel vision - I've never met an infantryman who couldn't fire with one eye on the sight and the other eye open as well. Situational awareness.<span id='postcolor'>

I actually really dislike the iron site. You would NEVER fire an M16 with your head that far away from the rear sight. Having sights like the ones in the picture will mean that it will be more difficult to acquire the target as you have a tiny little hole to see the target through. When you have your nose on the charging handle, the view is alot bigger through the peep hole. That's one beef I have with the NAM2 pack where they ripped the sites from America's Army it seemed (or tried to imitate those sites).

I agree however that it is possible to shoot with both eyes open. Although in practice few people shoot like that and usually your focus is entirely on a target unless you're just doing suppressive fire over a general area.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Eviscerator 0]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Feb. 18 2003,237)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Feb. 18 2003,09<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's one beef I have with the NAM2 pack where they ripped the sites from America's Army it seemed (or tried to imitate those sites).    <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

erm, the nam pack uses the bis iron sights on the M16A1....

[earl 0]

@Miles Teg: I agree that it's a little small, it gives the impression that the rear sight is too far from the shooters eye. If I make it so the sights are much larger, it will take up too much of the view. In real life, I don't think you would lose so much situational awareness for just using the iron sights.

I play on a server that doesn't allow aim crosshairs, so the 'optics view' is very important and always used. You can argue that the player can just switch between open view and 'optics view', but that's not quite good enough. Without crosshairs, your exact muzzle direction is unknown because it floats around in the center of the view. When you switch to optics view from normal view, you are never certain of exactly where you're aiming. It's much better to cover an area while using optics view.

If I make the rear sight large enough to 'feel right' to you, it will take up too much of the view, making it very difficult to know what's happening out front, which isn't terribly realistic, and not very desireable for my purposes.

It's still pretty early in development, so I'll be trying (and showing) some different ideas.

[ebud 18]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Feb. 18 2003,23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Feb. 18 2003,097)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very accurate iron sight on the M-16. And I like the absence of tunnel vision - I've never met an infantryman who couldn't fire with one eye on the sight and the other eye open as well. Situational awareness.<span id='postcolor'>

I actually really dislike the iron site.  You would NEVER fire an M16 with your head that far away from the rear sight.  Having sights like the ones in the picture will mean that it will be  more difficult to acquire the target as you have a tiny little hole to see the target through.  When you have your nose on the charging handle, the view is alot bigger through the peep hole.  That's one beef I have with the NAM2 pack where they ripped the sites from America's Army it seemed (or tried to imitate those sites).    

I agree however that it is possible to shoot with both eyes open.   Although in practice few people shoot like that and usually your focus is entirely on a target unless you're just doing suppressive fire over a general area.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD><span id='postcolor'>

I don't think either Evis, ST or I have ever even played AA?

Anyway, aside from the idea that anyone would see all of that detail when actually shooting, I think Earl's gunsights are very beautifully done. Simply amazing. I don't see how anyone could concentrate on shooting.. they'll be saying "Wow these look nice. "

[SFG 1]

Wow, amazing. Great work.

[earl 0]

Well Mr. Teg, I've been working on my M16 optics, and I've changed the iron sights.  They are now approximately the same size as the BIS originals, though they obstruct more of the view.  I still find them usable, but the new optics are far more useful and fun to use.  I just finished up the M68 CCO view, I've made it larger in scale than the Trijicon Reflex to match the relative eye relief.  I think the iron sights are now on a similar scale, so everything has its proper place..

Thanks to everyone for the nice comments.

http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc

[PFC_Mike 2]

oh my god Earl, those are exactly the kind of iron sights I've been dreaming about in OFP... please tell me you'll make them available for anyone making weapon addons, they are simply brilliant.

Miles, I think you're thinking of Code Blue. Their M16s used the AA ironsights. I do play quite a bit of AA becuase it runs very smoothly with 56k, there are plenty of servers, and it's a whole lot more realistic than CS, although OFP and GR beat the pants off it. BTW, can anyone comment on the accuracy of the AA M249 firing? I think MIles said he's fired a SAW, and he has AA, so perhaps he could answer?

sorry I got so OT, so I'll go back to my original points: those sights are just so beautiful, please allow everyone to use them and improve their US weapons addons.

[tkkivi 0]

Are you going to make custom muzzle flashes?

I saw an British soldier (i think he was part of SAS) shooting with an M4 in Afghanistan, you could bearly see a little flash in the barrel, are you going to include this type of muzzle flashes or go with the huge sunflowers?

[chaztheducky 0]

usully the m-16\m-4's have medium sized muzzle flash. not the biggest but defiantly not the smallest.

[r71 0]

This has got to be one of the best iron sight views I have seen yet. GJ!!!

[CrunchyFrog 0]

Looks great Earl.

Hmmm, how about putting a AK-74 and AK-47 in the pack, just original model, but wtih optics alá you have there on your M16's

[earl 0]

There won't be any Russian weapons in Suchey's USMC pack, but if you remember the reason why I came into the OFP modding community - it was to recreate all my Russian weapons from Ghost Recon... so be patient.

As for the muzzle flash, I'm going to try something different from BIS -- I'll do a high saturation orange flash with a high level of transparency. I want it to be a little less obvious than BIS's flash but it should still be visible enough for multiplayer.

[9mm 0]

Hey Earl, dont forget about making an ammo/weapon crate for the weapons that won't be issued to Suchey's Marines Units.

And yes we're waiting for your Russian Small Arms Addon impatiently

Hope to see screens of your MGs and pistols soon.

Good luck with your work Earl !

P.S. Don't forget about GR standard upgrade

[earl 0]

It's a little slow right now, but the M203 and M4 (and the irresistible combination of the two) are shaping up. The suppressed M4 isn't a final version, it will eventually be a SOPMOD M4 when I put together the rest of the kit.

======================

http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc

======================

.