Modern usmc weapons

[hellfish6 7]

Bummer. I was kinda hoping that you'd use BAS M-4s. Now I'll have another set of M-4s in my addon folder. That'll make 4. Not that yours aren't great or anything (they DO look great) but it just seems like the last thing we need is another set of M-4s. Especially if they're the exact same make and model as BAS has.

Until recently, I never thought I could have too many add-ons, but now I'm beginning to wonder. I love your M-16s, and I wish that if you didn't use the BAS M-4s, then you might maybe work with them in the future to use the same set of weapons (a mix of yours and theirs).

What I'd really like to see someday is a community standard US weapons pack, that includes the best models of all the small arms in the US arsenal.

Still... I am looking forward to your weapons, Earl, and I will download them.

[peanuckle_00 0]

Would you please make the MOUT marines too? They will be the forces that actually do any city fighting in urban terrain. They have this camo that is in shades of grey/black/white and have really cool weaponry like the m16A3 cmag with Aim 500 scope. Whatever you do all i gotta say is GO MARINES!

[earl 0]

I don't think Suchey will be makint MOUT marines.  I'd rather see desert Marpat first, and before that, I'd rather see comparably well-made Russians.

Anyway - this thread is about guns.  I have 8 new screenshots of guns to show - have a look:  

http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc/

I don't know if some browsers will continue to show old content because the filenames stay the same, so hit refresh if you don't see anything new.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Mar. 02 2003,07:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Until recently, I never thought I could have too many add-ons, but now I'm beginning to wonder. I love your M-16s, and I wish that if you didn't use the BAS M-4s, then you might maybe work with them in the future to use the same set of weapons (a mix of yours and theirs).

What I'd really like to see someday is a community standard US weapons pack, that includes the best models of all the small arms in the US arsenal.<span id='postcolor'>

I've heard that before!

Seriously, Earl, alliancing yourself (not necessarily joining) with a studio like BAS would be great for all of us.

It benefits you and BAS by sharing ideas, opinions and technologies.

It benefits you and BAS by being able to prevent the redundancy in weapons models that's only getting worse, giving all of you more time to work on new unique quality addons.

It benefits us by not having to have practically two copies of practically the same weapons.

[KDF 0]

Any plans to make the new M1014 Shotgun?..I understand the USMC were the first to receive it. Not exactly a frontline weapon I know but would be nice to use it for guards etc.

[earl 0]

I was thinking about it

[Supah 0]

how do you mean the same weapon? Earl is making a m16a4 if i recall correctly BAS made M4's. Besides does it really matter if they are going to be in one PBO with the marines? I dont feel so. Besides what i see of earl's guns i find they look better then BAS guns (no offence intended). BTW Earl a ammocrate would indeed be handy Keep up the good work!

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Mar. 04 2003,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how do you mean the same weapon? Earl is making a m16a4 if i recall correctly BAS made M4's.<span id='postcolor'>

Great! Then they are different.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Besides does it really matter if they are going to be in one PBO with the marines? I dont feel so.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree. I think weapons and soldiers should be in separate PBOs to allow the maximum customization by a mission maker. This is a pretty intuitive separation of files.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Besides what i see of earl's guns i find they look better then BAS guns (no offence intended).<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not taking sides because I don't feel I can until I actually get to play ingame with them.

My main point is, and I've mentioned this elsewhere, that by exchanging ideas, information and plans, addons makers and teams can learn from eachother and possibly avoid releasing duplicate addons, the latter being a potential time saving bonanza.

[hellfish6 7]

Yeah, what she said.

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

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 04 2003,16:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Besides does it really matter if they are going to be in one PBO with the marines? I dont feel so.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree. I think weapons and soldiers should be in separate PBOs to allow the maximum customization by a mission maker. This is a pretty intuitive separation of files.<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed. Like I wrote before it doesn't matter if the marines require these weapons to work, but it makes no sense that the weapons would need marines to work...

[suchey 0]

for simplicity sake the weapons and soldiers will most likely be in seperate PBOs but the pack will be released as one package containing 2 pbos.

[Eviscerator 0]

How about this, instead of Earl having to sacrifice all his work on the M4's, BAS and Earl work on new/modified M4's that fit both's needs but in one addon, if you are up for this Earl please contact tigershark@concept-5.com

There are also other weapons that this would work for, like the M249, i hope there will be a lot of cooperation between us (BAS) and Earl/Suchey, as their work will undoubtedly be used in conjunction with our upcoming helicopter addons by mission makers.

[blackdog~ 0]

If you have 2 seperate PBOs it makes us poor mission makers have to add the addon file in the SQM, otherwise you sometimes come up with the:

Cannot load mission, missing addons: blah blah blah

This is why the NAM Pack has problems with their addons.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ Mar. 05 2003,02:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you have 2 seperate PBOs it makes us poor mission makers have to add the addon file in the SQM, otherwise you sometimes come up with the:

Cannot load mission, missing addons: blah blah blah

This is why the NAM Pack has problems with their addons.<span id='postcolor'>

Can you explain by simple example? I don't understand the problem.

On the other hand, SEB nam pack has a lot more PBOs than I would have thought. Maybe it's the opposite extreme of 1 or 2 PBOs?

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Mar. 04 2003,16:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How about this, instead of Earl having to sacrifice all his work on the M4's, BAS and Earl work on new/modified M4's that fit both's needs but in one addon, if you are up for this Earl please contact tigershark@concept-5.com

There are also other weapons that this would work for, like the M249, i hope there will be a lot of cooperation between us (BAS) and Earl/Suchey, as their work will undoubtedly be used in conjunction with our upcoming helicopter addons by mission makers.<span id='postcolor'>

As a mod-slut, I firmly support this joint venture. I hope everyone is receptive to it (because looking at Earl's weapons - yowza! They look great! And BAS of course has excellent weapons as well).

[blackdog~ 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 04 2003,22:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ Mar. 05 2003,020)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you have 2 seperate PBOs it makes us poor mission makers have to add the addon file in the SQM, otherwise you sometimes come up with the:

Cannot load mission, missing addons: blah blah blah

This is why the NAM Pack has problems with their addons.<span id='postcolor'>

Can you explain by simple example? I don't understand the problem.

On the other hand, SEB nam pack has a lot more PBOs than I would have thought. Maybe it's the opposite extreme of 1 or 2 PBOs? <span id='postcolor'>

Say you have one addon PBO. Everything is in the same CPP, reffering to the same PBO for everything.

Now if you have 2 pbos using weapons from another pbo, this messes up the thingy. The configs have to point every which way to different pbos which eventaully can give you missing addon errors, such as Cannot load mission, missing addons: sebnam_vha

Its kind of hard to explain .

Aha, I have the perfect scenario.

You have the NAM pack soldiers in a game where they have to do a certain task to get a helicopter. Unless this is noted in the addon section the SQM, the helicopter isn't loaded when the mission is. So when the helicopter is created, a missing addon error will pop up... this is because it isnt in the same PBO as the soldiers.

But thats kind of a bad scneario, so say you are in a POW vietnam camp and you have a crate full of nampack weapons (with of course, non of the nampack weapons in any of the west's hands). when they walk over to the crates and get a nampack weapon, they will get a cannot load mission missing addons: sebnam_wep etc etc.

if you had a single PBO, this error would not come up (because it is all loaded in the first place) and voila, no errors.

i see the reasoning behind the seperate PBOS in the nam pack though, since its 45 megs. they can easily release new patches and updates (such as the upcoming armor pack) without bogging down people with 45 mb downloads.

hope you understand what i mean now.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ Mar. 05 2003,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hope you understand what i mean now.<span id='postcolor'>

Read you loud an clear.

I still think that separating PBOs by type is a good idea. Examples of separate files:

modnameAircraft.pbo

modnameVehicles.pbo

modNameArmor.pbo

modnameSoldiers.pbo

modnameWeapons.pbo

modnameObjects.pbo

And that's about maximum for a major mod. Most addons will just consist of two files, e.g., Soldiers and Weapons.

Just giving them such simplistic names and categorizing them in a similar fashion to BIS' original class divisions will make it a little easie and more intuitive for mission makers to know what to declare in the Mission.SQM file.

[Major Fubar 0]

Very good point Avon.

I have so many PBOs, I can't even remember what half of them are, especially with names like 88.pbo or SPDgs.pbo.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Mar. 05 2003,09:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very good point Avon.<span id='postcolor'>

It's so elementary, I'm embarrassed to even have to bring it up.

[earl 0]

Some updates on the USMC Weapons:

- M16 iron sights fixed.  They might have looked pretty good before, but were a pain to use - not enough room to see what's going on.   I've reworked them to match the BIS sight layout a little more closely, so you have more room to see what's going on.

- M203 leaf sight.  I think this is the best that can be done for the M203.  I don't like it all that much, but it looks okay and I can blow up Russians by the second shot.

http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc

I've been spending lots of time trying to hack my way through config files.  It's not much fun, and I'd rather be modeling.  I think I'm going to make all the weapon config stuff public - so everybody sees what's going into it, and gets the chance to comment/contribute.  It'll be a mess if I try to handle it myself.

[peanuckle_00 0]

The m16 with acog scope looks very impressive.

Edit: An afterthought that will stay a thought.

[CuteQA 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Mar. 05 2003,08:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Mar. 04 2003,16:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How about this, instead of Earl having to sacrifice all his work on the M4's, BAS and Earl work on new/modified M4's that fit both's needs but in one addon, if you are up for this Earl please contact tigershark@concept-5.com

There are also other weapons that this would work for, like the M249, i hope there will be a lot of cooperation between us (BAS) and Earl/Suchey, as their work will undoubtedly be used in conjunction with our upcoming helicopter addons by mission makers.<span id='postcolor'>

As a mod-slut, I firmly support this joint venture. I hope everyone is receptive to it (because looking at Earl's weapons - yowza! They look great! And BAS of course has excellent weapons as well).<span id='postcolor'>

It is a great idea. and it also save a lot of spaces. We won't need to download a lot of m4, m249, and blah blah blah..

[earl 0]

HK Benelli M-1014 Joint Service Combat Shotgun:

With Aimpoint M68 CCO:

http://www.baconbomb.com/usmc

I'm going to post my current config in the addon config/scripting forum.  I'm hoping to get lots of public discussion and assistance to get the best possible setup for all my weapons.

[blackdog~ 0]

HEHEHEHE!

Shotgun with scope! Finally something to use instead of the kozlice

[OxPecker 0]

Any word on when these will be released?

Are we waiting on Earl, or Suchey?