sgtvor

Let people jump, but land in the prone position. Stops the rapid jumping, and still gives you a chance to get out of harms way quickly.

I don't mean to dig up an old thread (at least it's still may) but this is better than starting a new one... I'd love to see a replay option available. Â Preferably using a method similiar to IL2, where a replay is only recorded when the option is activated from a menu (or hotkey), not started by defualt like the R6 series. Â Something like this would save disk space considerably, given OFP's customary long mission times.

Getting away from the JIP topic.... I'd like the ability to dynamically join and leave a group during a MP mission. Maybe leave it up to the squad leader to detach/attach group members...but it'd be a nice option to have in any case.

The problem with OFP and soldier accuracy lies in the missing "human" element. In the original OFP, the only real degredation of accuracy occurs based on the weapon itself. The shooter always has perfect aim. The small amounts of sight drift associated with being "tired" aren't much more than a minor obsticle that any player can adjust for within minutes of picking up the game. This can be seen in the AI as well (granted, the system is a little different for AI). An enemy soldiers skill level determines how soon he sees you....but an ace or a rookie can raise their weapon and hit you in a single shot almost every time. When playing multiplayer, it's rarely useful to move to a more advantages position, because if you can see the enemy, you can generally hit them, even at extreme ranges. Closing with the enemy is pointless, as it's just as effective, if not more-so, to sit at range and pick them off. The solution? Greater sight movement, and a very long stablization period to finally get that "rock steady" sight picture. There should be almost no way to get a steady sight picture while in any other position but prone. Maybe even base such sight movement on the skill level of the soldier being played. If I was making a mission, I'd give the basic grunts some low level skills, making anyone who used them in MP have to fill the role appropriately (stay in groups, using large volumes of fire to survive and kill). Special forces, or combat hardened units would be assigned higher skill levels, and therefore be much more "real" in their abilities inside the game world. Just some random thoughts.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SlickPilot @ 17 May 2003,04:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And without electricity(generator), the runway lights wouldn't work limiting night operations.<span id='postcolor'> I'd very much like to see logical dependencies between facilities added to the game. Things like that add an entirely new set of tactics to game, and increase the already insanely high level of realism. Aircraft or special forces troops would finally have targets to execute surgical strikes against that would seriously impact enemy operations. Targets would primarily be Generators (buildings and field generators, and dams if BIS is feeling really really nice).

Yep, This would be a GREAT addition. As would enabling the easy creation of user made coop campaigns.

Trespasser had AMAZING an physics engine...it's a shame the controls made it very near unplayable The health meter in that game was rather interesting as well heh

I don't mind the player movement in OFP either actually... Maybe if you gave us an example of what you had in mind?

APCs would be about a million times more effective if gunports worked and the damage model wasn't based on hitpoints.

The ability to join and split groups and conditional "dynamic" waypoints. I'd love to be able to split my squad (or <grin> platoon or company) and send units to different places without setting an entirely seperate waypoint path for them. I'd also love to be able to set two waypoints, with condition statements attached to them...if "A" is true, go to waypoint 1, if not, go to waypoint "B"

I know it was a flight sim, but IL2 had the GREATEST physics....my god, crash landing as hard and spectacular as you could, while still managing to walk away from it was almost a game in itself... Remember BIS...Good Physics = GLORY.

Grass and tree movement due to wind (and, if BIS is REALLY feeling nice, helicopter wash) would be awesome. Once you spend about an hour playing online in OFP, you can pick out a player crawling through cover at 500m and further...because it's the ONLY thing moving...it's a huge tell.

I'd like to see a couple of "shotgun" positions in each vehicle as well as the normal cargo, gunner, and pilot slots. They'd basically be any normal cargo spot that would allow the player to fire his personal weapon. Obviously not everyone in a helicopter is going to be able to fire their personal weapon out the sides, but a couple cargo spots on the edges would be able to, and they'd be "shotgun" slots.

Tracer mags for assault rifles. Let players decide for themselves if they want to have tracers flying out of their assault rifle. Field commanders can use them if they want, and everyone else can leave them in the bottom of the ammo crate.

As stated many times before, NO ONE in OFP cares about their life (AI or human players). Otherwise things would be a lot more interesting. This is the same reason people flying IL-2 might score 3 kills a mission, even against hardcore enemy ace aircraft...in real life, they'd NEVER take the chances they're taking in the virtual skies. Add that to the fact there is no penetration modelled, and anyone playing for awhile can positively ID an enemy soldier in virtually any cover. That means virtually 100% of shots fired are intended to be kill shots. If ANY military ever gets that hardcore, I'd be amazed. Essentially, what's missing is the pyschological aspect of tactical warfare.

It could very well be a 60's-70's era conflict....just....not in Vietnam. The era makes sense, seeing that pretty much any warfare after vietnam invovled technology where most of the killing took place at extreme ranges (not really fun for gameplay). I'd love to see a full afghanistan campaign set in the early 80s.

It could very well be a 60's-70's era conflict....just....not in Vietnam. The era makes sense, seeing that pretty much any warfare after vietnam invovled technology where most of the killing took place at extreme ranges (not really fun for gameplay). I'd love to see a full afghanistan campaign set in the early 80s.

http://64.224.14.56/EUNI/july_02/pilots_01.html Figured if any group of people on the internet would enjoy this, it'd be this one.

Actually that last source is still quite "Civy" in origin. Â Aside that it's hosted at Angelfire.com, it also clearly states at the end that everything complied in that document was done so entirely by the author, with no support of the US government. Â Hence..."Civy". Due to the specific use of the words "Double-Tap" in the rules of warfare, that term is strictly no-no for military personal. Â What most people think of as a double tap is generally called a "Two shot group" or something very similar by most military personal.

Weapons fire is a notoriously hard sound to reproduce accurately as the sound waves from gunfire are extremely high pressure, and rather "violent" compared to just about everything else. Â A microphone isn't going to record every bit of the sound, and on top of that, a speaker isn't going reproduce the recorded sound the proper way either. Listening to gunfire from a speaker is kinda like listening to someone who's trying to pronouce a big word without using vowels.

It looks like your sidewinders are WAY to manuverable. In an A4 on A4 dogfight, every single sidewinder found it's mark without error....even if that meant it had to make several 180 degree turns and come back at it's target after missing the previous time. Watching sidewinders circle another plane is kinda fun though....

If there are enemy units present and the A-10 behaviour is set to anything but "careless" he may very well go out and attempt to destroy the enemy regardless of his waypoints. To be honest though, anything goes with v1.00. Â 99% of us here haven't been using that version for a very very long time...so I wouldn't expect much solid help. For a pretty solid OFP editing database, I'd check The Operation Flashpoint Editing Center.

I'm not one to ask for random feature additions, but this is something that's really starting to become a problem more and more recently for me, and I imagine any serious mission makers. So, if we are treated to another update, I would very much like to see a "Hide waypoints" option for each unit in the mission editor. Now that we have a lot more civilian addons, and computers a quite a bit more powerful than when OFP first came out, missions are becoming more and more populated and dynamic. This unfortunatly creates a tangled MESS of waypoints across the editor screen. Even though unselected waypoints become transparent, it's just a headache to work around them, especially when one missed click can link you to an entirely different set of waypoints. Alright, I'm done. Thanks for the glorious game BIS.

True, but that gets difficult when you want to compare waypoint locations to other units who aren't in your current file, its' just an extra step. I'm just talking about a big fat button on the right panel that lets you turn on/off the waypoint markers for whatever unit you have selected.

First thing...EXCELLENT add on. One of the best yet. My only minor gripe thus far... Can you get the vertical speed bar on the hud to work off AGL instead of ASL? In it's current state, its' not really very useful...If it read AGL, it would be an amazing help with NOE flying and be a truly effective portion of the hud instead of a just neat little line that seems related to your movement. VERY nice work guys. Keep it up.