delaware

Is there a standard nomenclature for US military units? Â For example, if I had an operation involving: (1) HQ element (2) Helicopters for transport (2) Helicopters for CAS (2) Infantry squads What would be a realistic assignment of callsigns for these units? I've searched these forums as well as Google; I may be using some bad search terms, but so far everything has been irrelevant. Â I greatly appreciate any insight. Regards, Chris

Top weapon looks like a large anti-materiel rifle due to the straight magazine and the length of the barrel. If that's true, it's almost definitely an M82A1A. Yep, I'm bored.

Thanks for the help! Very much appreciated.

Hi, I wasn't able to find an answer in any tutorials or forum searches. Is there a way to save the "state" (e.g. location, aspect, etc.) of a texture image in O2? I'm using an image to model a weapon and if I close O2 I have to realign the texture to match the model. Thanks, Chris

Try KMM's International Soldier: http://mods.kmarns.net/modules....r_model Be sure to read the license ... it's a little different (in a good way).

My bad ... what I suggested was broader than I realized at the time. Â I meant different animations for Safe, Aware and Danger. Thanks, Chris

Funny shit. Â Haven't laughed that much since the last episode of MXC.

Looks great so far! Â If I may, a suggestion... In the 'safe walk' animation (e.g. picture 1), could you extend the index finger on the trigger hand so that it rests outside of the trigger guard? A picture for reference: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/ussocom_training/z_sft03 It'd be a small touch that'd greatly increase realism. Thanks!

That's a lot to ask of anyone that's already spending months of their time on one version without any financial reimbursement. Instead, if it's technologically feasible, I hope OFP2 offers realistic environmental weather effects so that seasons are dynamically modelled in-game. Imagine snow piling up on car hoods, only to scatter off as you speed up; large puddles forming in ditches after a storm that splatter when you run through them; leaves falling from the trees as you fight your way through a forest... These are high hopes and definitely not expectations.

That helps immensely. Â Thanks!

Vouching for realism, militaryphotos.net has some pictures of SF using ACOGs and M203s together: http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos....d_sfa07 http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos....d=018_G I don't see a leaf sight in the second picture so they must(?) use an alternative method of aiming.

Would it be possible to create a page to view bugs that have been previously submitted? Regards, Chris

There's a great Ghost Recon site displaying VIP duty SF personnel: http://www.planetrainbowsix.com/dtd/buttons/karzai/2DELTA.jpg It'd be great if something similar existed in OFP ... is anyone currently working on such a project? Regards, Chris

I've noticed one negative issue about these grenadiers. Â When they're a good distance behind you and you're near enemies, they'll fire their 203s and often injure / kill you in the process. Is it possible to script the AI so they consider the effects of their fire? Â Maybe a wound / kill radius could be defined for grenades, and before any AI fires a grenade, the radius around their target is checked for friendlies. Â If positive, have them use their rifle or pistol ... otherwise, proceed. If more complexity / generalization was required, the AI soldier could search its inventory for weapons which have an appropriate wound / kill radius, starting with the most damage-inducing (read: powerful). Implementing the checking of friendlies would have to be visually-based, in the way that AI soldiers currently "see" and identify things. Â This way, no indirect observations are made and things are kept realistic. Applicable to hand grenades, mortars, shotguns and more. Thoughts? Regards, Chris

That's been the highlight of the campaign (thus far) for me, too. Â I haven't seen an opportunity like that in any other missions, so it was a lot of fun. Â As you said, it was over in 10-15 seconds and I don't think the enemy got a single shot off. Â Violence of action. One small but rewarding surprise I've experienced throughout this campaign is the Ranger grenadiers. Â I don't know if BAS, Snake Man or someone else modified their AI, but they're using their 203s more often and they tend to drop 'em right on target. Relying on MGs and GLs is a good thing. Excellent campaign, Snake Man.

I agree with Avon regarding artillery. Â It's far too accurate in its current implementation ... the first two rounds usually land right on my squad. Â I'm no artillery expert, but aren't the first 2-3 rounds fired one at a time for adjustment purposes? I actually like the mines, though. Â They're visible, so that makes moving to target much more interesting. There is no similar warning for artillery. Edit... Enemy AI also calls artillery to within about 100m of themselves in my experience. Â That's awfully close, and they aren't in danger (even though 350-400m is danger close for 105mm) because of the artillery's accuracy. Â With that in mind, I have a suggestion. Make the artillery less accurate and restrict the AI to calling it on targets 300m and beyond. Â This would provide incentive for the player to approach targets without being seen by using terrain / cover, gaps in patrols, etc. Some of the missions might have to be modified, but I think it'd add a new, realistic aspect of mission planning.

What's the location of the pilot in 'May Day'? I've searched in and around Blata until I was simultaneously surrounded by 2-3 patrols and I still can't find him. Thanks!

I don't doubt that the creators of Ghost Recon, Raven Shield and OFP recorded real, live weapons, but something doesn't match up between their respective end results. Â None of them sound remotely similar, except OFP's original M16 and GR's M16, and that changed after OFP:R (or a patch ... don't remember when exactly). Could anyone with experience offer insight as to which are more realistic? Thanks! Regards, Chris

I'm running a Sapphire 9700 Pro without any serious issues, but I have occasionally seen the flashing textures relic mentioned. I think at least some of the issues ATI users are experiencing can be chalked up to recent games being designed with nVidia cards and drivers in mind, so with a little patience, hopefully we'll see better support for ATI cards. Â I say that because ATI's cards are inconsistent regarding their performance in different games; some run very well and others just plain suck, whereas just about everything runs good on an nVidia card. Â It seems more like a driver issue than hardware, and ATI is definitely making good progress on their drivers. I'd buy another one for a number of reasons. Â Right now, ATI has nVidia trumped on hardware technology while nVidia is still ahead in the driver department. Â ATI's image quality is head and shoulders above nVidia's but that's more a difference in philosophies than hardware technologies (i.e. nVidia prefers performance). Overall, I'm happy with my 9700 Pro. Â Having said that, though, if you want to completely avoid any problems, I'd stick with nVidia. Â ATI's technology is going to take a little while to work into the game industry and their drivers are still less than perfect. Â nVidia is usually a solid bet. Â I should know - after constantly struggling with 2 VIA motherboards, I haven't had ANY problems with this nVidia board. Regards, Chris

2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pcverden @ 07 May 2003,142)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LaPoieto @ 07 May 2003,03:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pcverden @ 06 May 2003,18:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Got bored so I took this screenshot and made it looks a bit better. Grounded airplane (171kb)<span id='postcolor'> How you do that!!!!!!!!!! That ones the best so far!!!!!!!!!   <span id='postcolor'> As I said I was bored so I don't exactly remember. I just mix a whole bunch of effects together and I got that image Glad that u liked it though  <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I said I was bored so I don't exactly remember. I just mix a whole bunch of effects together and I got that image <span id='postcolor'> The main effect looks like Stylize -> Find Edges.  Not sure about some of the other stuff. Looks good.

The issue wasn't what weighs less with all the goodies on, but rather what weighs less in the form FuseBox, as a potential infantryman, would employ it in. A standard M4 without any attachments weighs 5.6 pounds, less than half the proposed finishing weight of the XM29. That's a pretty significant difference. Anyway, I hope it does achieve its goal(s) and gives our guys another advantage out in the field. Have a good one, Chris

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dude, Xm29 is lighter than m16/m4......the comparing info is in the link which Teg provided................did you read the infomation?<span id='postcolor'> Don't take vague information like that as fact, especially when it's off a product page from the company that created it. What's wrong with it: 1. They don't specify whether they used an M16 or an M4. Â I would assume the M4 because I don't think the M16 has the Modular Weapon System capability, but the fact that they don't make any distinction between them in a comparison of weights is ridiculous. Edit: My bad. The M16 is capable of supporting the Modular Weapon System. 2. It doesn't list what items were attached from the Modular Weapon System, e.g. optics, laser devices, foregrips, bipods, flashlights, etc. Â We have no way of knowing how much weight those items contributed. 3. No details on what thermal sight was used for the M16/M4. Â Again, we have no way of knowing how much it weighed or what generation sight it is. I have nothing against ATK or the XM29, but it's pretty difficult to take that page seriously when the weapon, to my knowledge, isn't even finished yet. Â That's nothing more than an advertisement, complete with logo and slogan. Regards, Chris

That's why the AI needs to be ... intelligent. Â By intelligent, I mean aware of its surroundings and capable of automatically using them to its best advantage. Â The way it is now, the AI strives to remain in formation even while under fire. I like the simplicity of how Ghost Recon does it: if a team is under fire or you tell them to hold, they automatically move to cover (usually pretty solid cover - trees, rocks, etc.) by default unless you specifically tell them not to. Â Their ability to manage themselves to a certain point allows me to focus on completing the mission instead of constantly monitoring and adjusting the AI. OFP is much more complicated, I know, but its combination of interface and AI is like babysitting 11 retarded kids with scissors ... it leaves me wishing I could play MP/Coop. Â As far as I can tell, there is no easy way to get AI guys to take good cover (relative to the danger/target so as not to be visible or vulnerable) without putting each one of them in a specific place myself and then having them watch a particular direction. Â The "Find Cover" command should be renamed to "Roam Around, Stop & Orient Yourself Randomly" or "Let's Not and Say We Did." Â Whatever that command was intended to do, it doesn't do it. Another good point to take from GR is how AI team members mimic your stance. Â Overall, I hope they completely redesign and streamline the interface. As for spacing, I think it's a good workaround in OFP, but for OFP2 BIS should address the source of the problem, not the result.

OFP's developers could learn a lot from the SWAT series, especially in the AI and ballistics aspects. Â I have yet to find a more realistic game.

Hi, Can anyone recommend some good SP missions that don't require huge (both in size and quantity) addons for 1.46? I'm on 24k dialup so it's a real pain to track down 5-10 large files and then set them up overnight, only to have half not go through by morning 'cause GetRight didn't get to 'em quick enough. Exception: if something requires *one* large file (be it several addons or one therein) then that's cool... but anything over 5 per mission gets to be too much for me. Thanks!