EECP - Enhanced ECP

[MAA 127]

Quote[/b] ]Due the time to the new UAZ comes out from RHS, why you not use the UAZ from CSLA2 ?

Going from memory (it has been a while since I played CSLA,) the Russian UAZ in CSLA 2 looked pretty much like the BIS one. The Czech ones were different, but as far as I know the Russians never used camo like that.

CSLA UAZ is heavily updated, fixed and retextured BIS model! There are many model improvements on exterior and interior too.

Russian UAZ in CSLA2 are in green camo and CSLA UAZ are in two color variants: green, camo.

Russian UAZ comparison:

bigger version

[Taconic 0]

CSLA UAZ is heavily updated, fixed and retextured BIS model! There are many model improvements on exterior and interior too.

Russian UAZ in CSLA2 are in green camo and CSLA UAZ are in two color variants: green, camo.

Wow. Definetely my mistake. Now I feel a bit stupid. I'm sorry, I honestly did not recall that it had been improved that much.

[Taconic 0]

Request granted:

You guys should have reminded me of how much better the CSLA UAZ was sooner.

[Hawkeye 1985 0]

Jeah thats very nice !

Hmm stupid question but : What's about the CSLA Ural ?

He looks very nice too...

greez: Hawkeye 1985

[Taconic 0]

Jeah thats very nice !

Hmm stupid question but : What's about the CSLA Ural ?

He looks very nice too...

greez: Hawkeye 1985

The Ural is in as well, as is the CSLA Sa-58 model.

I still can't believe that I forgot how nice the UAZ looked. I really need to go back and finish the CSLA campaign one of these days.

*edit

Updated NVG effect (no sense in making a new post):

While I brightened it up a bit, it's still a bit brighter in-game.

[sanctuary 19]

it looks very good

[nubbin77 0]

Yeah, definately make sure its bright! (i have bad eyes).

[TA-50 0]

Kuri,

I was wondering if you could replace all units classifed as "officers" with an equiviliant soldier unit.  It should change the game play of any missions, or impact the organization of OFP groups.  There are two reasons I'd like to replace officers class units with soldiers:

1) OFP AI rank orders infantry targets for engagement, with officers being first (if not behind MGs).

2) Many missions with helicopters become annoying because many officers class units don't have helmets with googles.  The rotor wash scripts cause their blinding effects leaving the player no way to fix it in many BIS and PMC missions.

3) The SOP of many US Army units is such, that the soft caps OFP officers wear would never be allowed in the feild.  It is more likely to see officers wearing the same uniforms as their soldiers, and that means proper head gear.  So this would be a step towards realism.

Its your call, and I really wanted to emphasis my second point.  Thanks for giving me an ear, and either way you go, I'll still love this mod.  Keep up the great work.

-TA-50

[Taconic 0]

Kuri,

I was wondering if you could replace all units classifed as "officers" with an equiviliant soldier unit. It should change the game play of any missions, or impact the organization of OFP groups. There are two reasons I'd like to replace officers class units with soldiers:

1) OFP AI rank orders infantry targets for engagement, with officers being first (if not behind MGs).

2) Many missions with helicopters become annoying because many officers class units don't have helmets with googles. The rotor wash scripts cause their blinding effects leaving the player no way to fix it in many BIS and PMC missions.

3) The SOP of many US Army units is such, that the soft caps OFP officers wear would never be allowed in the feild. It is more likely to see officers wearing the same uniforms as their soldiers, and that means proper head gear. So this would be a step towards realism.

Its your call, and I really wanted to emphasis my second point. Thanks for giving me an ear, and either way you go, I'll still love this mod. Keep up the great work.

-TA-50

This is something that has also bothered me for a while. The "shoot me" hats that the the officers are wearing now do seem out of place. However, we still do need officer classes in the game for certain missions, so we can't just outright replace them, and therein likes my dilema.

One idea that I had a long time ago was to add a new class for a Fire team/squad leader and alter the default group definitions to use that unit instead of an officer. I think that would be a decent solution, but I've never tested it and I have no idea what the ratio of missions that use hand placed squads to predefined groups is. If I get a chance to (there are still a bunch of other little loose ends that I'm trying to tie up,) I'll try to implement this for the beta to see how it pans out.

[Locke@Germany 0]

One idea that I had a long time ago was to add a new class for a Fire team/squad leader and alter the default group definitions to use that unit instead of an officer. I think that would be a decent solution, but I've never tested it and I have no idea what the ratio of missions that use hand placed squads to predefined groups is. If I get a chance to (there are still a bunch of other little loose ends that I'm trying to tie up,) I'll try to implement this for the beta to see how it pans out.

unfotunatly this won't work

Since most mission where made using Standard bis groups where there is the standard officer as leader, the mission sqm will point to class OfficerW even if your new group-definition doesn't contain that unit.

[Taconic 0]

unfotunatly this won't work

Since most mission where made using Standard bis groups where there is the standard officer as leader, the mission sqm will point to class OfficerW even if your new group-definition doesn't contain that unit.

Ah... Yes, you're right. I completely overlooked what would already be in the sqm files.

At least you saved me from a good head smack later.

[Taconic 0]

Good news: I now know how to get the new optics working with DXdll thanks to Locke@Germany.

As usual, I was thinking too hard about things.

[nubbin77 0]

Kurayami,

The requests and updates are potentially never ending - but I'm going to assume that you saw inquisitor's new M60 tank - what do you think about getting that into one of the new releases (doesn't have to be the next by any means.)

[Taconic 0]

Kurayami,

The requests and updates are potentially never ending - but I'm going to assume that you saw inquisitor's new M60 tank - what do you think about getting that into one of the new releases (doesn't have to be the next by any means.)

It does look good, but it's an M60A1 and it wouldn't fit in with the more modern feel of the config. As I recall, Combat said they were doing an M60 pack at some point... I think it was Combat, anyway. Whoever said it mentioned that they were going to do an ERA equiped variant, which would be neat to have.

By the way: 0.4.3 is now in beta. Providing that no horrible bugs are uncovered, you can expect a public release in the very near future.

[Mr_Tea 0]

Good work. I`m glad to hear that the SF guys will be replaced with that ones from HYK. An alternative could be the use of the LSR_Deltas.

[sanctuary 19]

Kuri,

I was wondering if you could replace all units classifed as "officers" with an equiviliant soldier unit. It should change the game play of any missions, or impact the organization of OFP groups. There are two reasons I'd like to replace officers class units with soldiers:

1) OFP AI rank orders infantry targets for engagement, with officers being first (if not behind MGs).

This is something that has also bothered me for a while. The "shoot me" hats that the the officers are wearing now do seem out of place. However, we still do need officer classes in the game for certain missions, so we can't just outright replace them, and therein likes my dilema.

With the solution of using a model similar to the normal soldier model, maybe a solution of the "bullet magnet" officer can be found by altering some values

I noticed that the normal soldier has a cost=40000; when the officer has one of cost=500000; (the East officer has cost=600000; )

I have read somewhere that this cost value said how much the AI will want to kill this unit once it has seen it ( if my memory is exact the threat[]="x,y,z"; value means how much a unit will try to look for target x=value for soldier y=value for vehicle, z=value for air)

So the higher the cost, the higher the enemy side AI will hate you

But as in BIS config the threat[]=....; is the same for both the normal soldier and the officer , the cost value is the only one to change to make the enemy AI not give priority to the officer.

Well, that is the theory, hoping that nothing harcoded will by bypass this (to test, try to give cost=1; to an officer and see if the enemy AI will continue to have him in priority target. If nothing harcoded comes up , the officer should be +/- safe during a firefight )

[Locke@Germany 0]

With the solution of using a model similar to the normal soldier model, maybe a solution of the "bullet magnet" officer can be found by altering some values

I noticed that the normal soldier has a cost=40000; when the officer has one of cost=500000; (the East officer has cost=600000; )

I have read somewhere that this cost value said how much the AI will want to kill this unit once it has seen it ( if my memory is exact the threat[]="x,y,z"; value means how much a unit will try to look for target x=value for soldier y=value for vehicle, z=value for air)

So the higher the cost, the higher the enemy side AI will hate you

But as in BIS config the threat[]=....; is the same for both the normal soldier and the officer , the cost value is the only one to change to make the enemy AI not give priority to the officer.

Well, that is the theory, hoping that nothing harcoded will by bypass this (to test, try to give cost=1; to an officer and see if the enemy AI will continue to have him in priority target. If nothing harcoded comes up , the officer should be +/- safe during a firefight )

Well this would be a solutin but i'am as a human player also got my priority on Officers and then the normal Soldiers. Just because Officers alsways got a higher skill than regulars.

In most cases its also an advantage to do so, by killing the most skilled groupmember you also degrade the whole group to a slightly lower skill. So the only thing i would do would be to change the OfficerE to match his counterparts in therms of Cost.

[sanctuary 19]

If you give the same model for the soldier and the officer, you will lose your human player advantage to give the priority to the officer as a target

The cost values changement would be there to simulate the fact the AI will not make the difference between an officer and a soldier too

But if the model remain different between solider and officers , the cost values should not be changed, as in reality if the officer is clearly recognized by the enemy he can be sure to be killed first

[dayglow 2]

do you have gun smoke in the mod? That's the one thing I like in the Y2K mod that isn't in yours. Makes target ID in battle a little easier when you can zero in the smoke from them firing.

[Taconic 0]

Locke/Sanctuary: You raise some good points.

cost is indeed the value that determines the priority of a unit. I think that "value" probably would have been a better word, but I'm just thankful that the config values are English. I still remember the first time that I dug through BIS scripts and missions.

As for the model... I don't think that I can outright replace it because some missions assume that there is a distinguishable officer... not only in cutscenes and what have you, but within the mission itself. I've played a number of missions that require you to ID an officer and rescue/kill/capture him in order to win, and while they aren't entirely realistic, they do rely upon you being able to visually ID an officer at range. This is something that bothers me, but one of my goals is to ensure that I don't "break" any existing missions with my changes.

do you have gun smoke in the mod? That's the one thing I like in the Y2K mod that isn't in yours. Makes target ID in battle a little easier when you can zero in the smoke from them firing.

All of the large caliber weapons (basically, anything .50 and up) will have new firing effects in 0.4.3 (well, assuming that I can make them look good, anyway.) Small arms are on the list of things to do, but I'm not sure if those effects will make it into this version or not.

[RED 0]

Quote[/b] ]All of the large caliber weapons (basically, anything .50 and up) will have new firing effects in 0.4.3 (well, assuming that I can make them look good, anyway.) Small arms are on the list of things to do, but I'm not sure if those effects will make it into this version or not.

Have you tried the latest ECP version Kurayami? There are smoke effects in that, if you can do better we will include it.

RED

[Shashman 0]

Hi. I recently reinstalled my OFP, and thought it'd be a good opportunity to try out your config, but the EECP CSLA.zip is corrupted Are there any mirrors for it? Thanks

[Placebo 29]

First link worked fine using FlashGet, if you don't use one try a download manager or try the mirror which doesn't use the port.

[Taconic 0]

Have you tried the latest ECP version Kurayami? There are smoke effects in that, if you can do better we will include it.

Ah... I hadn't noticed. I'm still working from 1.071. I'll check it out later. No point doing something now if it'll be redundant later.

[Taconic 0]

Hi. I recently reinstalled my OFP, and thought it'd be a good opportunity to try out your config, but the EECP CSLA.zip is corrupted Are there any mirrors for it? Thanks

Sadly, I don't. If anybody is willing to provide more mirrors for this stuff, I'd be happy to link them in the readme.

The archive on ofp.info should be fine, though. I DLed it last week to compare something against my current working version and I had no problems.