New bas thread

[Nagual 0]

good thing, NOT!

I don't like to turn down View distance, detail settings ect. just to play a very large city, while I'm only interested in the jungle part with small towns. CatShitOne removed his big town on the afghanistan map because people had performance problems with it.

There is at least 12 or so km between the big city and jungle, so i dont think your view distance will make a difference. Though the jungle lags alot more than the big city. And there are no towns in the jungle, only bases. You be able to see for yourself soon enough.

[ruff 102]

okay

since the rangers and deltas are going a massive update and as one member of the bas team said that they will look totally different from the current ones

y not gives us the rangers without insignias or flags and normal un modified weapons like the basic m4s for normnal troops so it can be an international army like the krms did

just a thought at 1:25am

or better a yet just a normal looking current conflict us soldier

its cool if u just decide just a simple "no"

[munger 25]

its cool if u just decide just a simple "no"

*twiddles thumbs waiting for a simple "no"*

[acidcrash 0]

there already is one...at the bottom of the list called "soldier" but theres no medic without the ranger tab

and further more, if you check he read me for the exac code snippet you can assign custom unit patches (10th,82nd, 101st were some already included)

[charlis 2]

Hey hi all, im Charlis from [=FAB=] Portal News, Brazil.

Myself and some other fellas cant open BAS home page(http://www.ballistic-studios.com/) , we receive an error message (server not found) anyway its seems that you all (non brazilans) can open it normally.

Does anybody Know whats happening?

thanks in advance!!!

[ebud 18]

okay

since the rangers and deltas are going a massive update and as one member of the bas team said that they will look totally different from the current ones

y not gives us the rangers without insignias or flags and normal un modified weapons like the basic m4s for normnal troops so it can be an international army like the krms did

just a thought at 1:25am  

or better a yet just a normal looking current conflict us soldier

its cool if u just decide just a simple "no"

I hard coded the flags into the textures and I intended it to be that way. Reason being that these are US troops, and to have a tricolor desert unit or woodland unit with US style gear and weapons with a national flag from another country would look very strange to me (even after giving them other weapons). There is a way (i think) for other unit patches to replace the ranger tabs, but no changes for the flag, and I don't plan on changing that in the textures at least (but if TS says change it, then I'll change it). I wouldn't add a US flag to a Finnish unit for example, so why would someone want to put a Finnish flag on US special ops soldiers (just an example).  Just my reasoning as to why I made them that way.

[Cloney 0]

I agree with you Ebud, they are American units and they should stay that way.

[hellfish6 7]

Plus, BAS has a standard "soldier" model that isn't quite as well equipped at the Delta/Rangers so that you could simulate standard US troops. All the weapons you need to do that with are either in the game already, in JAM or comes with the Delta/Rangers (vanilla M249, vanilla M240B, etc.)

You can use the KMARNS international soldier as well, just give them different weapons.

[Cloney 0]

Also, you could give the standard soldier a M4A1 without any optics, just the detachable carrying handly and a grip on the front of the rifle, along with a PEQ.

[Eviscerator 0]

I think the only thing i can say is wait and see...

[Gollum1 0]

@ Aug. 22 2003,20:37)]Hey hi all, im Charlis from [=FAB=] Portal News, Brazil.

Myself and some other fellas cant open BAS home page(http://www.ballistic-studios.com/) , we receive an error message (server not found)  anyway its seems that you all (non brazilans) can open it normally.

Does anybody Know whats happening?

thanks in advance!!!  

Same thing for me.

[blackdog~ 0]

Website works for me, just slower than it usually is... (it's always slow )

[The Frenchman 0]

Website works for me, just slower than it usually is... (it's always slow )

Me too. It is just slow for me.VERY SLOW

[nyles 11]

Here's an idea for the upcoming armour pack:

It would be great if you could add a single "ride in back" seat to the tanks. That way people could simulate the 4th crew member (loader). For obvious reasons of max squad sizes of 12, you could leave the seat empty by default, so that tank crews are still 3 only. However, players have the oppertunity to place additional crew, which is not part of the same squad in that ride in back seat for the sake of realism. Furthermore, you could also use this spare seat to give some shelter to surviving crew of destroyed tanks. An AI advance wouldn't have to slow down to the speed of a crawling soldier, but could simply order them to ride in back and continue to advance. Just an idea, but I think that it would add something that's missing in OFP at the moment...  

[The Frenchman 0]

Here's an idea for the upcoming armour pack:

It would be great if you could add a single "ride in back" seat to the tanks. That way people could simulate the 4th crew member (loader). For obvious reasons of max squad sizes of 12, you could leave the seat empty by default, so that tank crews are still 3 only. However, players have the oppertunity to place additional crew, which is not part of the same squad in that ride in back seat for the sake of realism. Furthermore, you could also use this spare seat to give some shelter to surviving crew of destroyed tanks. An AI advance wouldn't have to slow down to the speed of a crawling soldier, but could simply order them to ride in back and continue to advance. Just an idea, but I think that it would add something that's missing in OFP at the moment...  

I like this idea alot!      

Our mod (IMUC) is thinking about this feature.

[Cloney 0]

Here's an idea for the upcoming armour pack:

It would be great if you could add a single "ride in back" seat to the tanks. That way people could simulate the 4th crew member (loader). For obvious reasons of max squad sizes of 12, you could leave the seat empty by default, so that tank crews are still 3 only. However, players have the oppertunity to place additional crew, which is not part of the same squad in that ride in back seat for the sake of realism. Furthermore, you could also use this spare seat to give some shelter to surviving crew of destroyed tanks. An AI advance wouldn't have to slow down to the speed of a crawling soldier, but could simply order them to ride in back and continue to advance. Just an idea, but I think that it would add something that's missing in OFP at the moment...  

Great Idea.

[AOCbravo2004 0]

I dont know about some of you, but I DePBO'd the Deltas/Rangers and made a regular US Army 9man Inf Squad out of the regular Woodland soldier. I equipped 5 guys with M4's/M16's, 2 with M203's, and 2 with M249 SAW's. I also used the Covert Woodland Rangers and made a Special Forces A-Team out of them. I replaced the Ranger Tab with the SF patch, doesnt look too good though. So I filled my needs. Oh yeah, all weps in the Rangers/Delta Pack are now JAM :-) So I am very happy. Thanks BAS, DG, and whoever else was involved in it, it's the best.

George

[Gollum1 0]

Here's an idea for the upcoming armour pack:

It would be great if you could add a single "ride in back" seat to the tanks. That way people could simulate the 4th crew member (loader). For obvious reasons of max squad sizes of 12, you could leave the seat empty by default, so that tank crews are still 3 only. However, players have the oppertunity to place additional crew, which is not part of the same squad in that ride in back seat for the sake of realism. Furthermore, you could also use this spare seat to give some shelter to surviving crew of destroyed tanks. An AI advance wouldn't have to slow down to the speed of a crawling soldier, but could simply order them to ride in back and continue to advance. Just an idea, but I think that it would add something that's missing in OFP at the moment...  

I support this idea.

[Cpt. FrostBite 0]

If it's just for giving shelter to AI crew that got their tank destroyed it's better to have them sit on the back of the tank.

[4 IN 1 0]

Here's an idea for the upcoming armour pack:

It would be great if you could add a single "ride in back" seat to the tanks. That way people could simulate the 4th crew member (loader). For obvious reasons of max squad sizes of 12, you could leave the seat empty by default, so that tank crews are still 3 only. However, players have the oppertunity to place additional crew, which is not part of the same squad in that ride in back seat for the sake of realism. Furthermore, you could also use this spare seat to give some shelter to surviving crew of destroyed tanks. An AI advance wouldn't have to slow down to the speed of a crawling soldier, but could simply order them to ride in back and continue to advance. Just an idea, but I think that it would add something that's missing in OFP at the moment...  

Hey~ good idea man   i secound it

[munger 25]

Here's an idea for the upcoming armour pack:

It would be great if you could add a single "ride in back" seat to the tanks. That way people could simulate the 4th crew member (loader). For obvious reasons of max squad sizes of 12, you could leave the seat empty by default, so that tank crews are still 3 only. However, players have the oppertunity to place additional crew, which is not part of the same squad in that ride in back seat for the sake of realism. Furthermore, you could also use this spare seat to give some shelter to surviving crew of destroyed tanks. An AI advance wouldn't have to slow down to the speed of a crawling soldier, but could simply order them to ride in back and continue to advance. Just an idea, but I think that it would add something that's missing in OFP at the moment...  

Yep, this is something that should have been an option from the start. I doubt it would be too much work either, just adding an extra sitting proxy in the loaders seat.

[9mm 0]

You mean something like this:

[im]http://www.ballistic-studios.com/users/eviscerator/screenshots/weapons25.jpg[/img]

(From a .pdf of SEAL weapons)

The Seals you're making, or the rl ones?

[4 IN 1 0]

You mean something like this:

[im]http://www.ballistic-studios.com/users/eviscerator/screenshots/weapons25.jpg[/img]

(From a .pdf of SEAL weapons)

The Seals you're making, or the rl ones?

er..................type 56-1 is a AK version which produce in

china, which, as i know, not much different to the AK........

the pic you saw now is a custom made version i think........

(the reason for calling it Type 56 is that it started mass

production since 1956)

[9mm 0]

there's no boubt about it, but Picantinny rail and that vertical forgrip don't smell like a Chinese standard.

[coporal_punishment 0]

It probably one of those rifles made by gun-smiths who have too much time on thier hands.