Dark Knight 0 Posted July 6, 2003 id love to see the fuel bomb! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sxep 0 Posted July 6, 2003 Yeah, you should make an armed c-130. That would really improve ifetime in my addon folder ;) and please improve the turn velocity, its almost imposible to correct the direction your flying. you have to Make a real hard turn so you can change direction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philcommando 0 Posted July 7, 2003 Before folks start pinpointing jpegs as the cause to lagging:- Reference to Hudson's:- "The lag problem is more than likely because hawk made the very bad descision of using jpeg textures this time, nothing will eat your memory faster... " here are some facts:- 1. From Col Klink - experimenteur extraordinaire - :- "In the tests that I've done there doesn't seem to be any lag so far. How it is on other's cpu's I don't know. But the improved textures are very good. An couple of examples of comparable file sizes: A pac file for a 512x256 texture weighed in at 84.5 kb while its jpg alter ego weighed in at 33.9 kb Even better was a bigger a pac file for a 1024x512 texture weighed in at 341kb while its jpg alter ego was only a mere 65.1 kb " Posted: April 18 2003,10:57 From the horses's mouth:- Suma:- "Another point you might want to consider when using JPG textures: While JPG textures are stored very effectivelly on the disk, they are stored with no compression while loaded, because video card needs them uncompressed. On the other hand DXT compressed textures remain compressed even when being used. " Posted: April 18 2003,13:48 Summary of both perspective = jpeg or pac/paa, ultimately on screen both will have same kb display, with jpeg an egde better in terms of file size and compression. Lagging is not only due to pics unless there are many pics and all these pics are huge files, eg:- 512 X 512 for paa or jpegs. Probable causes = 1. too many unneccessary polygons. 2. scripts too complex, eg,- boolen, arrays, etc 3. unknown memory points 4. open ended config statements, eg:- wrong source codes. 5. Textures apply to every LOD when u only need it for main LOD and perhaps a far distance LOD only. I personally think it was a good attempt to make a nice 130. Keep up the goodwork. Who amongst us doesnt make mistakes? And who can please em all?..lol! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hudson 0 Posted July 7, 2003 Hmm, maybe klink has a much better computer than I do. Â As this version clearly lags on my 1 ghz where the old version didnt. I opened and compared the pbos and didnt see any major scripting/cpp changes so I doubt thats the problem. My opinion, Jpegs is a horrible idea for an addon. Suma said it himself, they require more of my computers "limited" resources. This addon uses jpegs well over 512X256, there are 1024X1024 and even 2048X2048!. Thats not good enev on a 64Mb geforce when it has to do all that extra computing. Even if the file sizes are half with jpeg Im sure the extra conversion processes put on the video card, cpu, and virtual memory are 4 times more intensive than a mear 32 Kbs of file size. Dont forget what else suma said... Quote[/b] ]While jpg textures can be used, you should be aware the performance hit for doing so is quite significant, as JPG decompression must be done by the CPU.Another note is mimmapping does not work well with JPG textures in OFP, therefore objects viewed from larger distances may look "aliasing" (too fine texture used) and there is usually video card perfomance hit for using too large mipmaps for small objects. This addon also only uses 2 resolution LODS, 1.0 and 150. I dont even think my computer will run a viewdistance capable of using a 150 LOD. Minmapping definatly plays a part in this lag issue for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackdog~ 0 Posted July 7, 2003 The US doesn't use dirty bombs... can't believe you said that . We use MOAB's and Daisy Cutters ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sxep 0 Posted July 7, 2003 lol wups yeah, don´t know where i read it, but i thought of an fuelbomb or a tac nuke.....hmmm ahh like in the movie " OUTBREAK". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shashman 0 Posted July 7, 2003 lol wups yeah, don´t know where i read it, but i thought of an fuelbomb or a tac nuke.....hmmm ahh like in the movie " OUTBREAK". Oh was that a nuclear bomb?? I thought it was just some big ass bomb Anyhoo I am against weapons like nukes and MOABs being implemented in OFP...They're simply too powerful.They don't fit in Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sxep 0 Posted July 7, 2003 Know the CoC torpedos? there is a nucwarhead torpedo in the pack. It blows everything in 1000m range. And it looks hell of real! it doesnt blow everything into space like the F-15 nuke. As for Outbreak: Yes i think it was a small Nuclear bomb. I read somewhere that the c-130 Can drop a small Nuclear Bomb if nececery. And the Explosion sure looked like a nuke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Acecube 0 Posted July 7, 2003 The US doesn't use dirty bombs... can't believe you said that .We use MOAB's and Daisy Cutters ! Which of coarse are "clean bombs"! LOL (Sorry for going OT) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blackdog~ 0 Posted July 7, 2003 Dirty bombs are things that terrorists use with chemicals and explosives and all kind of 'dirty' materials mixed together... unlike the US who manufactures their bombs Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sxep 0 Posted July 7, 2003 oh well..Like my timmy BLackdog Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shashman 0 Posted July 7, 2003 It blows everything in 1000m range. Hmm...OFP isn't a strategy game.It's played at a tactical level.Bringing in nukes, even tactical nukes would change it into something practically unplayable (at a tactical level) IMHO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sxep 0 Posted July 7, 2003 well it may be interresting for missionmakers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miles teg 1 Posted July 7, 2003 Almost correct. Â Actually a dirty bomb is bomb that contains both high explosives as well as radioactive material. The radioactive material does not have to be nuclear grade material so the material easier to get ahold of. It also doesn't blow up like a nuclear bomb. Â Instead the goal of a dirty bomb is to spread radioactive material over a wide area. Â So while it doesn't kill thousands or millions of people instantly, it can give many thousands of people radiation poisoning as they die a slow death from the radiation itself or from the cancers that it causes. Â Here in the US Jose Padilla was arrested for attempting to obtain materials for Al-Qaeda so they could make one. Â However documents seized in Afghanistan and statements from Taliban/Al-Qaeda prisoners gave evidence that they had already built at least one dirty bomb and that one hasn't been found yet. Â It is believed that it was moved to another country before the collapse of the Taliban. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coporal_punishment 0 Posted July 7, 2003 Almost correct. Â Actually a dirty bomb is bomb that contains both high explosives as well as radioactive material. Â The radioactive material does not have to be nuclear grade material so the material easier to get ahold of. Â It also doesn't blow up like a nuclear bomb. Â Instead the goal of a dirty bomb is to spread radioactive material over a wide area. Â So while it doesn't kill thousands or millions of people instantly, it can give many thousands of people radiation poisoning as they die a slow death from the radiation itself or from the cancers that it causes. Â Here in the US Jose Padilla was arrested for attempting to obtain materials for Al-Qaeda so they could make one. Â However documents seized in Afghanistan and statements from Taliban/Al-Qaeda prisoners gave evidence that they had already built at least one dirty bomb and that one hasn't been found yet. Â It is believed that it was moved to another country before the collapse of the Taliban. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD> Well it depends on how much radio active material is used in the bomb, wind conditions and population density. The explosion itself is used as "activation energy" for radiation waves to start working, then that's when the wind kicks in which carries the radation wave (that's why its best to stay upwind from the bomb and inside your house given that its made from brick or other dense materils). Apart from killing people in the direct explosion it would barely radiate more then a hand full of people who would die from radiation posioning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mox 0 Posted July 7, 2003 It looks superb, It handles like 200 camels packed in a flying barn. My advise: Get rid of the textureproblems Dont go for allout realism in handling(or whatever), just make it a joy to fly...only enjoyable addons make it to servers. Make the ramp a little lower so its easier to drive vehicles in. Get rid of the 30extra doors you can open. This wil give you a addon wich will nodoubt be a killer, now you've got a smashing model wich nobody will use. Good luck Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pong2cs 0 Posted July 7, 2003 lol wups yeah, don´t know where i read it, but i thought of an fuelbomb or a tac nuke.....hmmm ahh like in the movie " OUTBREAK". Oh was that a nuclear bomb?? I thought it was just some big ass bomb  Anyhoo I am against weapons like nukes and MOABs being implemented in OFP...They're simply too powerful.They don't fit in Fuel-Air-Bomb, biggest non-nuclear weapon they had. Just saw the movie last night. Anyways: Yes, Hawk somehow mysteriously lowered the handling on the Hercules, yet I did manage to load up 4 Black Ops and a Hummer and deploy them on the other side of the island, then land, have them drive back to the airfield, and load up again, 3 times in a row. I wish Hawk would fix those roadway paths, it's a pain to load anything up. Speaking of loading, has anyone noticed the parachute scipt he uses for loaded cargo? It just appears directly below the plane, on the ground. Wish he would make it parachute too. But I don't want to be greedy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
attilauk 0 Posted July 7, 2003 lol wups yeah, don´t know where i read it, but i thought of an fuelbomb or a tac nuke.....hmmm ahh like in the movie " OUTBREAK". Oh was that a nuclear bomb?? I thought it was just some big ass bomb  Anyhoo I am against weapons like nukes and MOABs being implemented in OFP...They're simply too powerful.They don't fit in it was just a fuel-air bomb, they explode twice.  Once to spread liquid fuel in small droplets around a large area and the second incendiary explosion ignites the fuel-air mixture causing a massive explosion.  the reason it is used to "clean" infected areas is because the burning fuel-air mixture is so hot it destroys the viral and bacterial agents and sterilizes a very large area. Quote[/b] ]The explosion itself is used as "activation energy" for radiation waves to start working, then that's when the wind kicks in which carries the radation wave ? Um as far a i know there is no such thing as a radiation wave!  and activation energy in a nuclear device is the energy required to start a nuclear chain reaction (either Fission or Fusion) i.e. a big ass explosion!  There are electromagnetic waves like light, UV light, gamma rays and X-rays but no Radiation waves.  I think you mean that the radioactive alpha and beta particles given off by the spread of radioactive material get carried with dust by the wind which depending on the amount and type of material in the bomb governs how dangerous the bomb is.  A dirty bomb could render an area dangerously irradiated for hundreds possibly thousands of years so i think they would kill more than a handfull of people! Sorry but i've done a course in Nuclear and Particle Physics during my A-Levels and i had to set you straight! *back on topic* i like the grey colour scheme and i dont have any lag problems (but then again i did build my rig for large Civil Engineering CAD projects at uni) but i was disapointed with the way the aircraft handles i only hope he improves  the flight charicteristics next time cos i love fat alberts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dark Knight 0 Posted July 7, 2003 i can see it now C-130 flys over a town, a object falls from the back and a parachute opens, they think its a man so they get closer, then.......................................................................... KABOOM!!!! one town to be crossed off the map Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dark Knight 0 Posted July 7, 2003 any chance that some one is working on one? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sxep 0 Posted July 7, 2003 I´m lucky Osama´s not pissed at Austria Don´t want to live in the US for every Money there is...hmm on the other hand, but NAaaaa ;) Oh it was a fuelbomb? Oh ok then, make a nice fuelbomb then. Dark knight distribed perfectly how it should be used. That would be awsome. Hope someone buys the idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Donnervogel 0 Posted July 7, 2003 Before folks start pinpointing jpegs as the cause to lagging:-Reference to Hudson's:- "The lag problem is more than likely because hawk made the very bad descision of using jpeg textures this time, nothing will eat your memory faster... " here are some facts:- 1. From Col Klink - experimenteur extraordinaire - :- "In the tests that I've done there doesn't seem to be any lag so far. How it is on other's cpu's I don't know. But the improved textures are very good. An couple of examples of comparable file sizes: A pac file for a 512x256 texture weighed in at 84.5 kb while its jpg alter ego weighed in at 33.9 kb Even better was a bigger a pac file for a 1024x512 texture  weighed in at 341kb while its jpg alter ego was only a mere 65.1 kb " Posted: April 18 2003,10:57 From the horses's mouth:- Suma:- "Another point you might want to consider when using JPG textures: While JPG textures are stored very effectivelly on the disk, they are stored with no compression while loaded, because video card needs them uncompressed. On the other hand DXT compressed textures remain compressed even when being used. " Posted: April 18 2003,13:48 Summary of both perspective = jpeg or pac/paa, ultimately on screen both will have same kb display, with jpeg an egde better in terms of file size and compression. Lagging is not only due to pics unless there are many pics and all these pics are huge files, eg:- 512 X 512 for paa or jpegs. Probable causes = 1. too many unneccessary polygons. 2. scripts too complex, eg,- boolen, arrays, etc 3. unknown memory points 4. open ended config statements, eg:- wrong source codes. 5. Textures apply to every LOD when u only need it for main LOD and perhaps a far distance LOD only. I personally think it was a good attempt to make a nice 130. Keep up the goodwork. Who amongst us doesnt make mistakes? And who can please em all?..lol! look what Suma said. JPEGs are only smaller because on the Harddisc they're stored compressed. But in the video memory (that's the critical point - as I alsways say) they're stored uncompressed wich can cause them to be over 1 MB. And as soon as you're out of Video Memory (pretty fast since most people don't have more than 64 MB) the lagging starts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dark Knight 0 Posted July 7, 2003 well i have been messing about with the fule bomb therory Test this is with the CoC's Nuke Torpedo i no i no if not a fule bomb.. but its a start Share this post Link to post Share on other sites