High detail weapon pack released!

[punishment 1]

Yeh i think the RPK should have tracer rounds as it is a MG.

[InQUisiToR 0]

It would be nice if somebody can make new animations for bajonet.

If interest exit contact me inquisitore@gmx.net

And stop asking for those unrealistic ofp tracers for assault riffles!

[The Frenchman 0]

I like the current ones.

[Major Fubar 0]

Can we have a high textured OICW?

PIC

Wasn't blackdog working on one of these?

[blackdog~ 0]

Couldn't find any good sounds for it. I can send inquisitor the model though!

[Baphomet 0]

I'd have to agree with some comments on performance here. I'm getting pretty sick of this design philosophy myself. Yeah, they run fine for me... but I'm worried about the future. I'd like to give a wakeup call to these people trying to make OFP compete graphically with games that don't do half of what OFP can do in terms of broad scale battle simulation by essentially lowering the performance so that not only does OFP look slightly better (but still not as good as it's vastly limited contemporaries)... but on the whole doesn't do half of what it could do if designers payed as much attention to usability and the fact that people aren't buying components for their PCs every three months.

I mean some people have talked about how BIS models are lacking detail and some addons look better. What?! You don't think BIS could have made more detailed models and textures? That's nothing to brag about. They made a game that was totally groundbreaking for it's time run farily well for the hardware that was available at the time... now that's impressive on a less superficial level.

Skilled game design not only stems from a need for visual appeal but also the skill of making something run acceptably on a wide range of pcs... It's something that unfortunately is flagrantly ignored by many addonmakers. at the rate this is going OFP 2 will run better on my pc than ofp will with addons coming out as they do.

[@cero 0]

I can't belive my luck!!!

All you guys going on about the lagg thing with this weapons... I have a very sad computer, yep,

600 MH

256 RAM

15 GB HD

and the sadest part of it, I'm using a 15 M shared GC, and the thing is, I'm building like 4 different missions using this weapons, no major battles, but I'm using 6 squads of 12 men all togueder, with vehicles, some of the OFP Lavos MT-LB vehicles, 3 different particles scripts, on Kegetys Winter Nogojev and Nogojev... and it won't lagg, so, is just luck or all this complaining about it is just alot of B####cs?

Inquisitor, man, you pack is amazing, not just eye candy, and I'm looking forwood for and update.

One sugestion to you, I allready sayed this, but if you can add new sounds to the bullet impact it would be even better, if you want an example have a look at the DAA M16A2 pack. You'll see what I meen.

[Commander-598 0]

Quote[/b] ]I mean some people have talked about how BIS models are lacking detail and some addons look better. What?! You don't think BIS could have made more detailed models and textures? That's nothing to brag about. They made a game that was totally groundbreaking for it's time run farily well for the hardware that was available at the time... now that's impressive on a less superficial level.

Most games I know that are older by years than Flashpoint, actually modeled the ejection port of their assault rifles instead of putting a texture over a flat surface.

[Baphomet 0]

What games are those? Rainbow six? Ghost recon? Those games don't share the same priorities as OFP did.

...The priorities of being able to put copious amounts of entities on the playing field without incident of slowdown to any serious degree. OFP really is one of the first games to actually be able to do this on a huge scale. If you want small battles go play some other game. I want to be able to have my 200 units in game without much slowdown. When I get my next PC I want to try for the full 700 some odd entities purportedly to be supported by ofp at an insane drawdistance and at 1027 in 32 bit color.

Not just my measly 200 on a brand new computer because some guy wanted to make an iron sight composed of 500 polys.

[miles teg 1]

I agree. Alot of people just don't understand that all the massive capabilities and realism of OFP comes at a price. Games like MOH, CS, and even BF1942 have better graphics because they have much smaller battle areas. Even BF1942's maps are a heck of a lot smaller... and the graphics are only marginally better then OFP (personally I prefer OFP graphics).

There are two types of gamers in the FPS world. Those that like the flashiest, hottest graphics, and those that just want reasonable graphics, but that prefer realism, good framerates, and atmosphere over flashy graphics and special effects.

Heck, I still like playing "Carrier Command" and "Armegeddon" (that old Amiga game with multiple vehicles and aircraft) even though those are ancient games. They were good because they had excllent features and atmosphere and were just super fun to play. Graphics are nice, but personally for me games like Counter Strike get me very bored after awhile.

But some people prefer non-stop action, where as others prefer slower strategic gaming. OFP I think combines elements of both and in my opinion is the most realistic infantry simulation around.

But with all that said, I have nothing against Hi-Res weapons packs because like someone else said, if you have the computer to play with them, then you should be able to enjoy nice looking weapons.

But I think it's stupid to put down BIS for not making everything Hi-Res since they were trying to make a game compatible with lower end computers as well. That's just good marketing. Now the average computer is a little faster so yeah, maybe OFP2 will need a little bigger computer.

But personally I don't care if the graphics don't improve. I'd rather see more features like multiple gun positions (a more flexible vehicle class structure) and animals in the game as well as the ability to join Multi-Player games in progress.

But I know there are some that want OFP to become more like Ghost Recon and BF1942. To those people I suggest that they play all the other FPS games out there that cater to their desires as there are plenty of them... but there is only one OFP and so far no imitators that come even close.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Commander-598 0]

WHo said anything about high-res? hell, i'm not even complaining, i'm just saying, they could have modeled the ejection port of the M16 instead of just placing a texture. It looks weird in when the light shines on it.

[Rifleman 0]

i agree with you baphomet

ofp isnt about the best graphics, its about the best gameplay

thats why i have been playing ofp since the demo came out and thats why soon as i beat ghost recon in a bout 2 days i never played it again, and played CS for maybe a day before i got bored with it

in ofp2 i wouldnt care at all if it used the exact same graphics

i just want more features that make for a more realistic battlefield, like multiple turrets, missiles on wheeled vehicles, better loadout options for infantry, better scripting, ect. ect...

and besides the high detail weopons dont really fit in with the rest of the game anyway, looks kinda wierd to me, and the iron sights view isnt nearly as good as the rest of the weapon

i either want standard BIS iron sights or good ones like on earls weapons

[edc 0]

When OFP first came out, you had to make a compromise, but computers are getting to the point where you can have both very nice looking graphics and a large scale, realistic battle.  Keep using the Jpeg textures, they look much better.  This is and should be "high detail weapons pack", what would be the point of having it if he was just going to use mediocre textures.  If you have an older computer and want to have better frame-rates, then just don't download these and use the ugly original ones.(no offense BIS)

[Skaven 0]

Guys this seems like a pointless discussion to me, it's true that high detail weapons push more from your computers, but the problem in using the CS weapons is "NOT WORKING THE LODs WELL", cause if you do it well the lagging will be very small if any.

About BIS units, well guys some of the statements here are rediculous. If BIS didn't do their addons better it was only because of the gameplay, cause they can do it like none of us can, they are professionals, almost all of us have an experience of 3 hours a day for 2 years of work. They have at least 8 hours a day for 6 years of work, so guys think a little bit, if BIS units ain't better it's just because or they didn't have time or the gameplay didn't allowed it at that time.

The discussion about the the high detail weapons lagging or not lagging in some computers is very easy to explain, this are the facts to take in consideration:

1 How many programs do you have running in the bakground?

2 What are the computer's specs?

3 What is the level graphic's detail your using in game? 7? 9? 10?

4 What is the terain level ? Low? Normal? High?

5 What is the distance view your using? 900? 1500? 2000?

6 How many units are you using at the same time?

7 What is the distance between them? (It's totally different in having for example 100 units with a meter of distance from each others and than have the same units with 5 meters from distance between them. 5 X100 will make 5.000 meters you won't even see them, 1X1000 will still use some Lods cause you see them, well if the last LODS have a high number of polys than be sure that the game will lag unless you have a powerfull computer which in some cases isn't even enough.

I use the CS weapons with a perssonel decision, I will only use them when I know the LODS are made according to BIS's standarts and I try to never use more than 15 at the same time.

This decisions are something that you guys must make yourselfes in order to be sure that your taking the best from the game and not the best from the addons.

I see no problem in using GOOD worked CS weapons as long as you use them with moderation.

[Donnervogel 0]

The problem with jpeg textures is this:

When the mission is loaded OFP has to load the textures in the video memory. Now there's the problem. pac/paa can be compressed and it will take some kilobytes space. Now the same texture in jpeg format can take over a megbyte in the video memory because it can't be compressed. And when your video card runs out of memory the game will store the textures somwhere on the harddisk (that's what I think - I'm not an expert on this)

But the problems is that it takes much longer to access that data than to access data in the video memory. That results in delay wich means LAG.

[benu 1]

Computers are getting faster every day. Hell, some people here use machines that don't even meet the minimum requirements for resistance and expect all the gamer that bought a better computer to enjoy better graphics to sink down to their level...

These are NOT the official models. These are inofficial addons which you CAN download and use or you DON'T. If your computer is too slow then do not d/l them. But don't bitvh about the people with better hardware who want to USE that hardware. I play ofp because of the gameplay, but i like good graphics. So if i want to use the HD pack eg in the single player campaign then i see no reason why i shouldn't. And if i want to use it in a mission for mp i have to ask myself the question if i care about low end computer users or not. I can lag those out with other means too (setviewdistance 5000), so this is a "fault" of the mission maker, not the addon maker.

[miles teg 1]

I don't think anyone is arguing against that point Benu.  Only that it's stupid to critize BIS (like calling their textures ugly) when they were using perfectly appropriate textures and models.  Someone mentioned modelling an ejection port... that means a bunch more polygons which addon up when you got 100 West soldiers running around.  I've fired the M16A2 many times and I never noticed the lack of a modelled ejection port on the M16's in OFP.  To me it looks like a M16 (although slightly too bulky looking) and shoots like a M16.

Also back to High Res textures and LOD's.   Actually folks we're not even talking about low end computers.

I have a 1.8ghz computer with 512 megs of RAM and a average 32meg TNT2 Palit Daytona video card.  Inquisitors weapons pack starts lagging my computer fairly quickly as I start adding units and I don't consider my computer low-end.

If you have some hyper-speed dual processor monster with the latest and greatest CPU, RAM, and 3d video card then maybe it is, but if you got one of those then that's great.

For those of you who can run this Hi-res weapons pack with no problems then that's great.  Make missions, enjoy these weapons!   However don't sound like idiots blasting BIS for their "ugly" weapons.   Thank your lucky stars that BIS has made such an incredible game with such an open-ended system and development tools that has allowed addon makers to truly push the boundaries of this game.  Inquisitors pack is one step in pushing those boundaries graphics-wise and that is a good thing.  

However I hope that most new addons that come out are more along the lines of the BAS addons which look good, don't slow down framerates too much, and provide lots of great new innovative features that enhance gameplay.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[benu 1]

As Donnervogel said performance seems to depend upon the graphics card, so tnt2 is pretty low-end ;)

Else i am satisfied with bis' weapons, but inquisitors look better.

BIS' weapons are better for "the masses", as the official weapons should be.

Inquisitors are for those who don't know what to do with their computers unused resources ;)

[Nemesis6 0]

Aye. Ofp's tracers might not be realistic, but rifles DO have tracers.

[miles teg 1]

Aye. Ofp's tracers might not be realistic, but rifles DO have tracers.

Sometimes. Tracers in rifles are generally only used at night. There is a saying in the military:

"Tracers work both ways."

In some conflicts forces would stop using tracer fire because it gave away their positions. That is one reason why the latest models of the U.S. Army's M4 have laser targetting systems compatible with their NVG's. This way they don't have to use tracer ammunition. For longer range machine gun fire however tracer rounds are often used to "walk" the rounds onto their target. On machine guns tracers rounds are also often used both during the day and night.

But I agree that the tracers in OFP aren't the most realistic looking. I'm surprised so few addon makers have made more realistic tracers. I know it's possible because I've seen some addons that fire with nice fat looking tracers that look more like the real thing.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[ebud 18]

Which addons... I'd love to check that out.

[Commander-598 0]

Quote[/b] ]Someone mentioned modelling an ejection port... that means a bunch more polygons which addon up when you got 100 West soldiers running around.

It looks a little...solid, especially when the light reflects off of it.

[343rdBadger 0]

I gotta ask ..cause i do it in photoshop all the time...Can't the jpeg's be compressed??...in my photoshop i have low medium and high...i wonder if this wouldn't help the lag issue?

[miles teg 1]

[

It looks a little...solid, especially when the light reflects off of it.

Yeah but on the real deal the ejection port doesn't stick out much so it would be kinda difficult to model other then perhaps having a little ejection port cover (dust cover) folded down that you could see visibly, but even that doesn't stick out too much. However I think that perhaps on the M60 machine gun they could have added a little more detail on the 3d model. That was my favorite weapon in the Army.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Baphomet 0]

See I'm not knocking a high-res addon pack. But I think it's wholly irresponsible of the community if that trend were to totally encompass the way addons are made. The whole "computers get faster everyday" philosophy is a very thin excuse. I know quite a few people even though they can buy new components frequently who simply find it ridiculous to have to upgrade so frequently or buy a new $2,500 machine. It is. People with higher end machines are in the minority. So yes having high-def addon packs is fine, it's just when everyone tries to adopt this philosophy.

Look at unreal 2's system requirements.

Pentium III or AMD Athlon 733MHz processor  (*Pentium or AMD 1.0 GHz or greater RECOMMENDED)

128 MB RAM (256 MB RAM or greater RECOMMENDED)

3 GB Harddisk space

8X CD Rom

Windows compatible sound card (*Sound Blaster Audigy series sound card RECOMMENDED) (NVIDIA nForce or other motherboards/soundcards containing the Dolby Digital Interactive Content Encoder required for Dolby Digital audio. Also RECOMMENDED)

3D Accelerator card with 16 MB VRAM (*32-128 MB VRAM RECOMMENDED) 16 MB TNT2-class DirectX version 6 compliant video card. (*NVIDIA GeForce 2/ATI Radeon RECOMMENDED) DirectX version 8.1 (Included on game disc)

The performance is not always but -should- be focused on what the game was designed to do. Having addons that collectively increase the system requirements of ofp which in relative terms of what they're "supposed" to be capable of (in ofp's case large scale battles) making it more demanding than a game like Unreal 2 is both laughable and irresponsible.

Unreal 2 is nothing but useless gimmicks and bells and whistles. Yet I'm seeing a trend wherein to run OFP as it's intended to run you'll need a computer better than would be required to run a game like Unreal 2.

That's one thing that addonmakers are totally ignorant of (or seem to be). Is the fact that their addon isn't the going to only thing being used in a game. Yes I know people who work for certain businesses that can access faster computers for either a really cheap price or temporarily for free... but what kind of idiot buys a new PC every six months? Someone with too much money on their hands... and in any case. A definite minority.