Deltas and rangers released!

[mr. Duck 0]

Erm... Can anyone help me out here by answering the following question (sorry, stupid question again)?

Wich rifle does the 10th Mount., 82nd Airb. and 101st AA currently use?

I think it's the M4 for all three but I'm not sure.

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Feb. 18 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Erm... Can anyone help me out here by answering the following question (sorry, stupid question again)?

Wich rifle does the 10th Mount., 82nd Airb. and 101st AA currently use?

I think it's the M4 for all three but I'm not sure.<span id='postcolor'>

They do all use the M4A1

[mr. Duck 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Feb. 18 2003,00:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Feb. 18 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Erm... Can anyone help me out here by answering the following question (sorry, stupid question again)?

Wich rifle does the 10th Mount., 82nd Airb. and 101st AA currently use?

I think it's the M4 for all three but I'm not sure.<span id='postcolor'>

They do all use the M4A1<span id='postcolor'>

*bows down for eviscerator*

Thank you, thank you kindly  

[JJFLY 1]

how do i put the tabs on soldiers so they are from diff units....like 101st, 10th, 82nd

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JJPHAT @ Feb. 18 2003,01:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how do i put the tabs on soldiers so they are from diff units....like 101st, 10th, 82nd<span id='postcolor'>

As always, this information was provided in the readme (more specifically the code snippets)

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

******************************************************************************************

****************************

You can select a Patch to put on the units arm, by pasting this code into the INIT field :

NOTE: The texture can be changed in mission

NOTE: Using the default "Soldier" and "DES Soldier", you can simulate a variety of Ranger Divisions.

USA

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_derad\usa_vlajka.pac"]

[end code]

OR different Ranger Divisions:

[code]

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\82nd.paa"]

[end code]

Available Ranger Patches are :

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\82nd.paa"]

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\101st.paa"]

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\10thMt.paa"]

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\75thRanger.paa"]

And Subdued patches:

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\82ndsub.paa"]

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\101stsub.paa"]

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\10thMtsub.paa"]

this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\75thRangersub.paa"]

OR

Your Country (any flag built into the game):

[code]

this setObjectTexture [0,"\flags\yourcountry.jpg"]

[end code]

OR

Place any JPG in you mission folder, (has to be sized to regular OFP sizes, such as 16, 32, 64, 128, 256):

[code]

this setObjectTexture [0,"YourLogo.jpg"]

[end code]

SQUAD PATCHES

To quickly and easily change the arm patch of an entire squad, past this line in the INIT field of squad leader:

[code]

{_x setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\10thMt.paa"]} forEach units this

[end code]

or (for use outside init field, requires Group name):

[code]

{_x setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_derad\usa_vlajka.pac"]} forEach units Grpname

[end code]

******************************************************************************************

****************************<span id='postcolor'>

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Feb. 18 2003,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Various FN Minimi/Mag 58 Variants using magnification scopes:

<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe, those are not magnificating scopes. All the scopes on the pictures are actually Eclan C79 sights. They are telescopic but not magnification scopes in the common meaning (Like scopes on sniper rifles). On the contrary they are inwardly focal-reflecting with the primary function of enlarging the FOV. It's use is not for shooting things at large distances, but covering a large FOV. Another functionis that it improves livion in low light environments.

Technically it is does have a x3.4 magnification but that's not its function. It is not a scope, but a sight.

[blackdog~ 0]

My bandwidth, my precious bandwidth! Nooooooooooooooooooo!

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 18 2003,01:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Feb. 18 2003,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Various FN Minimi/Mag 58 Variants using magnification scopes:

<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe, those are not magnificating scopes. All the scopes on the pictures are actually Eclan C79 sights. They are telescopic but not magnification scopes in the common meaning (Like scopes on sniper rifles). On the contrary they are inwardly focal-reflecting with the primary function of enlarging the FOV. It's use is not for shooting things at large distances, but covering a large FOV. Another functionis that it improves livion in low light environments.

Technically it is does have a x3.4 magnification but that's not its function. It is not a scope, but a sight. <span id='postcolor'>

....now you're just being pedantic The fact it is Telescopic makes it a scope..., but either way, what i meant was that they are sights/scopes with a 3.5x magnification on FN Minimi/Mag 58 Variants.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Feb. 18 2003,01:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">....now you're just being pedantic The fact it is Telescopic makes it a scope..., but either way, what i meant was that they are sights/scopes with a 3.5x magnification on FN Minimi/Mag 58 Variants.<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe, perhaps it's pedantic, but there is actually a big difference between sights and scopes. Optical sights just replace the normal iron sights. Scopes are for targeting things at a larger distance. Don't let the 3.5x magnification fool you, it's just the external configuration of the lenses. The actual difference in magnification that you see is rather insignificant.

Which brings the whole point of having optics on an MG: It's not for improving visual range but as a replacement for the iron sights, giving a clearer reticle and light amplification.

Without any significant magnification, there is no more problem with using optics then using the normal iron sights.

[BAS-Damocles 0]

OK time to answer some more questions before the fighting starts!  

Lets begin with saying that the firstly, the two automatic belt fed weapons we included in the Delta/Ranger addon are the US M249 SPW (Special Purpose Weapon) and the US M240B Machine Gun.

Both of these fine weapons are produced by FN, and have an FN Counterpart, (FN Minimi/FN Minimi Para, FN Mag) with distinctive differences between them. The M249 is chambered in 5.56mm NATO, (.223 caliber) and the M240B is chambered in 7.62mm NATO (.308 caliber)

We'll start with the basics, beginning with the M249 SPW. The M249 SPW (the SPW's closest relative is the Minimi Para) is used by US Army Special Operations forces, and is designed to accommodate and have interchangeability with all the M4 SOPMOD Accessories.

The US Navy SEALs use a version called the MK46 MOD 0. Both can use the RAS/RIS systems, with the Navy version also having the Pickatinney rail. Both of these weapons are more compact then the Standard M249 SAW, as they are designed to go easily from normal combat environments, to close quarters battle (CQB)environments with the same effectiveness.

These weapons are shoulder fired aimed weapons just like the M4 Carbine, and contrary to what you may have seen on TV, Soldiers, Marines, and Sailors are never taught to fire them from the Hip. If the weapon is not being employed in the prone using the bipod for stability, then it is fired from the shoulder, with aimed burts of automatic fire. The recoil is negligible, as the weapon has a compensator, and enough mass to control muzzle climb.

On to the M240B. This weapon began its life in the US Military as the coaxial machine gun, and gunners hatch mounted machine gun on several US armored vehicles including the M1 Abrams family, M2Bradley family the LAV25 Family and others.

The M240B while slightly heavier and greater in length the the M60 Machine gun is a much more accurate and reliable medium machine gun.

The M240B is also easier to maintain being that it has fewer moving parts and is easier to disasemble then the M60. The M240B is also shoulder fired weapon (Again real soldiers dont hip shoot) and the recoil it generates is greater than that of the M249, however it is also manageable, and is compensated as well.

The M240B can be tripod and vehicle mounted, and is considered a crew served weapon. This means that it takes at least two people to operate the weapon. The Rangers use a crew of 3 soldiers. The Gunner, the Assistant Gunner, and the Ammo Bearer. (The AG, and AB will each have an M4 as well)

On to the question and the picture that started the argument.

The M249 in the first picture does NOT have a scope on it, it has an Aimpoint Reflex Optical Gunsight. This sight provides no magnification, only a 4, 7. or 10 MOA (Minute Of Angle) dot that allows a soldier to rapidly aquire and engage targets in all lighting conditions. (As the Dot is illuminated in low light and darkness)

DKRaver is correct when he says there is a difference between a "Scope" and an optical gunsight. High powered magnification scopes would be impractical mounted on a machine gun, and not very accurate.

There are several types of optical sights available for both the M249 (Can interchange all of the SOPMOD accessories) and the M240B including Visible and IR laser pointers. The Extremely large sight on the M249 in the photograph posted by Eviscerator is a night vision sight.

Older generation night vision systems such as that are quite large while providing little magnification.

The answer is yes, the machine guns can use optical gunsights (Both non magnified and LOW magnification) and various pointing devices, however they do not use "scopes"

An additional fact FYI is that Machine gunners are also trained to fire in short controlled bursts, and never fully automatic uninterupted fire. This is to prevent overheating the barrel and destroying the weapon.  It also allows the gunner to provide accurate fire.

As DKRaver and Denoir said, the optical sights are intended to replace and perform the function of the Iron Sights on the weapons. This is done because they are easier to align on target, which makes engagement more rapid and natural. With standard iron sights you must align the rear sight with the front sight properly to engage a target. The Optical sights provide point and shoot ability.

[benu 1]

Great addon and great missions.

But BAS_4C_CovertOp_v1.0 just kept crashing our server (1.90f linux dedicated)

All other missions seemed to work fine so far.

You could select the mission, assign roles, start, get out off the choppers and run around for a few seconds and then the server would go down.

I am not sure if the server or the mission is the problem (i will look further into it tomorrow) but i wanted to report it as soon as possible.

[Eviscerator 0]

heh all this for using the wrong word, which is similar...anyhoo, what i was trying to point out in the first place is that if using a 3.5x28 Elcan is common then moving up to a 4x32 ACOG isnt too much of a leap, especially for SF. But there is always the 'old' M249 sans optics if you fancy something a bit different

And i wasnt the only one!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, after looking a bit more carefully then I think I agree with you about that being an aimpoint. BUT the C9A1 does use an Elcan C79 scope, no doubt at all: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-c9a1.htm

And, take a look at the last pic I posted. <span id='postcolor'>

[Liquid_Silence 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BAS-Damocles @ posted this)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">High powered magnification scopes would be impractical mounted on a machine gun, and not very accurate.<span id='postcolor'>

Damocles, you definitely are an authority on this sort of stuff, and this is a heavier machine gun but I thought I'd mention it anyway...

A Marine Scout/Sniper (more like the Marine Scout/Sniper ), Gunnery Sgt. Carlos N. Hathcock II, was once accredited with hitting an NVA at 2,500 yards (1.42 miles, or 2.28 kilometers) with a special scope-adapted (I think the scope was a Unertl, and that it was side-mounted) .50 caliber machine gun converted for single shot operation.

[Tigershark 0]

The key there would be "single shot operation"

[SGTKOPP 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BAS-Damocles @ Feb. 18 2003,01:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M240B is also shoulder fired weapon (Again real soldiers dont hip shoot) and the recoil it generates is greater than that of the M249, however it is also manageable, and is compensated as well.<span id='postcolor'>

you are the man if you can shoulder fire a M240B The weapens size makes it very difficult, Also the way it is balanced does not work to well when trying to put it to your shoulder. As you said the M60 is lighter and shorter, the navy seal version of the m60 is even short So what im trying to say is the M240B is a crew serve prone or supported firing MG not shoulder fired Call any M240B gunner in the world and they will tell you that is the truth

[SGTKOPP 0]

weight: 27.0 lbs / 12.2 kg length: 48.0" / 1219.2mm shoulder fire that

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 17 2003,21:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">M240b looks real to me   I have fire the real thing  and it is long skinny and heavy   Also with the saw if you use proper bursting 6-9rd burst a sight is usable   all the saw is is an automatic beefuped M16 It is quit easy to fire and control <span id='postcolor'>

Ack... sorry to disagree, but the SAW is nothing at all like a M16 design. The bolt assembly is way different, it's primarily belt-fed, ect.. ect.. The only similarity is that it fires the same ammo and has a similar muzzle brake/flash suppressor.

As far as controlling it. I should say that for a big guy if you lean into it hard you can control it better. But for a small fry like me, it shakes a hell of a lot more then an M16A2 on burst mode. It's not that the recoil is heavy...it just shakes alot. I actually had less trouble with the M60 (in the prone position at least) because it was so heavy. At any rate, I assume that Special Ops units must stick those scopes on the M249's for good reason even if it goes against the primary usage of the weapon which is as a suppressive fire weapon. That's why I was curious as to why they do it.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[SGTKOPP 0]

one of the pics with the m249 w/sight was a guy from 10th mountain jacka@@

[PFC_Mike 2]

which unit has the stock M249, w/o a scope?

Also, those of you who have fired the SAW in real life, can you make a comment about the accuracy of the BAS sounds? They sound nothing like America's Army, which I trust is pretty accurate about US weapons. But I haven't fired one, so I can't say.

I know you guys spent a lot of time working on a compromise regarding the 3-color desert camo, and I respect that. But the desert units look so little like any photographs I don't really enjoy playing with them. They don't blend in at all on Nogova, and even on Desert Island you can see them pretty far off. I took a screenshot of some BAS desert Rangers and an HK Pack Fundamentalist (wearing three color) I don't have a way to upload it but the HK 3-color seems a much better blend of accuracy and game camouflage.

Two other small issues: FIrst, I can't believe that the sound of trying to fire an M4 without any ammo in the magazine sounds the same as trying to fire an unloaded M203

The other is the animations for the SOPMOD M4's. I know you can modify animations, but is this the animation linked to the soldier or the weapon? I'm asking this because if the animation is linked to the weapon instead of the soldier, maybe you guys could make it so that the Deltas and Rangers with SOPMODs could hold the foregrip right.

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 18 2003,04:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">one of the pics with the m249 w/sight was a guy from 10th mountain jacka@@<span id='postcolor'>

Uh... who are you replying to?  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[miles teg 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Feb. 18 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">which unit has the stock M249, w/o a scope?

Also, those of you who have fired the SAW in real life, can you make a comment about the accuracy of the BAS sounds? They sound nothing like America's Army, which I trust is pretty accurate about US weapons. But I haven't fired one, so I can't say.<span id='postcolor'>

No the sound is not accurate at all. However, it is VERY VERY difficult to get a truly accurate sound, and honestly it's been awhile since I fired one and unless it was spot on accurate and jogged my memory, I would have a tough time saying if the sound was exact or not. I could only say if it was close. The sound as it is, isn't all that close as you don't have all that low end thump to it. If you watch the news showing U.S. troops firing the SAWs during live fire training in the Persian Gulf you'll get a better idea of what they sound like (although on the TV they sound a bit muffled and abrupt due to the audio limiter used for the sound so as not to distort the audio).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[sgtvor 0]

Weapons fire is a notoriously hard sound to reproduce accurately as the sound waves from gunfire are extremely high pressure, and rather "violent" compared to just about everything else.  A microphone isn't going to record every bit of the sound, and on top of that, a speaker isn't going reproduce the recorded sound the proper way either.

Listening to gunfire from a speaker is kinda like listening to someone who's trying to pronouce a big word without using vowels.

[ebud 18]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Feb. 18 2003,05:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know you guys spent a lot of time working on a compromise regarding the 3-color desert camo, and I respect that. But the desert units look so little like any photographs I don't really enjoy playing with them. They don't blend in at all on Nogova, and even on Desert Island you can see them pretty far off. I took a screenshot of some BAS desert Rangers and an HK Pack Fundamentalist (wearing three color) I don't have a way to upload it but the HK 3-color seems a much better blend of accuracy and game camouflage.<span id='postcolor'>

http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/Traning_Exercises_in_Kuwait/kuwait24

http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/Traning_Exercises_in_Kuwait/kuwait29

http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/Traning_Exercises_in_Kuwait/kuwait45

http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/album46/robin10

http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/Special_Forces-Afghanistan/z_sfa13

http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/Special_Forces-Afghanistan/b_sfa01

Now compare those pics to these

http://www.flashpoint.ru/news/images/Delta_New3.jpg

http://www.flashpoint.ru/news/images/Delta_New2.jpg

No two pics of this cammo will look the same, but to say that they do not look like anything you've seen before isn't quite true anymore

[Major Fubar 0]

--------------

       

[theavonlady 2]

More powerful than a SuperSoaker!