-Snafu-

They are statistics collected from three separate studies all of which are relatively lengthy. It was not just pulled out of his arse. Of course they can be questioned but this is the same for all statistics. The war is still going and obviously not everything is 100% clear. Thirty years after the end of the war when historians can take a look at it we will know more. When one makes an argument they provide evidence to back it up. You made a claim that Allied forces kill more civilians than the insurgents. Where is the evidence? Just because you feel something is accurate does not mean it is. You have failed to back up your assertion. What you 'feel' is irrelevant. It is not assumption. He has posted extracts from reports showing that he has searched for those reports and read (at least parts of) them. When historians begin to really look at the war 30 years after it has ended we will have a far better picture of almost everything but that is obviously a long time away. Pathy has made use of the facts available to us now. It is clear you have not done any research because you said so yourself. Your 'perceptions' are not research or evidence. Unfortunately you do not make this clear. You stated it as if it were fact, no hint at all that it is an opinion. Which doesn't really make sense as Allied forces either have or have not. That's not something that's down to opinion.

Facts are facts and Pathy used what facts we have available to put forward an argument and make very reasonable conclusions. It does not matter if you 'feel' you are right or that you 'feel' that you know what you are talking about. Making stuff up and passing it off as fact just because one 'feels' they are correct does not slide. Furthermore, I am not debating the subject matter (civilian deaths) because I, like you, clearly do not know enough about the subject whereas Pathy at least did some research.

If you are about to post in a discussion you know nothing about, instead of making stuff up and stating it as fact, don't post.

Must be an ATI issue as I updated my Direct X from 9c to 11 and the wierd bushes are still there.

Incoming! Take cover! :couch: Seriously. I can't see much good coming from this thread at all but I will eat my hat if I'm proved wrong. If this is a serious question and not just a troll I am sure there are other forums and sites out there that would be of much more use than the BIS forums.

This thread.

Click me I started uploading stuff to the site a couple of years ago but abandoned it. Had some free time today so I started making a mission but found that some recent scripts I wanted to try were missing motivated me to fire the site up again and upload what I had. I limited it to scripts because the site just doesn't have the storage space for missions on top of that. Yeah, it's nothing fancy, the point was just to get them up somewhere where they're less likely to disappear forever.

Sorry for bumping this 'old' thread. You can get it at ofp.info. I think 1.1 final is exactly the same as the beta. Can somebody confirm this? http://ofp.gamepark.cz/index.php?showthis=10611 I've started playing OFP again using SLX 1.1 but it crashes quite a lot for me. Is anybody else experiencing this? I think it may be because of Windows 7.

Cole is asking for units of the modern Czech Republic. CSLA is a mod about the Czechoslovakian armed forces, the Czecho Slovak People's Army, which hasn't existed since 1992. Would be a bit odd seeing them in Takistan, no?

Same. I ran out of Hellfire so I went back to base to rearm, screen blacks out and it comes up with mission failed. Either this is a bug or you are not allowed to rearm at all. :butbut:

Yeah I figured that out. Still funny though: 'Oh noes gunfire I think I'll lie down, oh wait is Mr American I get up now AHHHHHHH! Those...damn...barrels...ugh.'

Not sure but the last drivers I had was 10.1 I think and I didn't have any problems.

When I get to the mine and clear the bad guys...

I get something similar. Basically the bushes are white or black and 'flash' and change around when you move. I did play ArmA maybe a month or two ago and I didn't have this problem but a few days ago I updated my Radeon drivers and got the problem. Specs: Win 7 64 bit i7 920 6GB RAM ATI HD4870 512MB

Yeah too funny. :D Anyway I'm looking forward to Zipper5's videos and 2 July when I get my copy.

q2GI3Pk8Ots

I'm one of those odd people that like both.

North Korea does not have the ability to even invade the US let alone conquer it as it is nothing more than a regional power. - The US Navy is massive and controls the sea. NK could only dream of having a navy that size. - NK does not have the capability to transport a significant amount of troops to the US and keep them supplied. Too big a distance plus such a route is over water. - The size of the US is its greatest asset. It would be nigh on impossible for an army to conquer and hold it all. I checked out the site for the game and what a ridiculous story. NK builds up a huge army and suddenly swallows up Asia without complication? Yeah like Jakerod said; totally ridiculous story. Of course it's just a game. I liked WiC even though such a war would have been short before one side accepted defeat or went nuclear. Modern arms would mean difficulties in getting industry geared up in time and such to replace battlefield losses etc.

I've heard that Police radio sound from GTA in a lot of films and TV shows. Too many. In 28 Days Later you can hear the M16 sounds from OFP on the SA80 at the army checkpoint scene when the soldiers pop out of nowhere and kill a human turning into a zombie. I can't find that scene anywhere though.

This is the thread to reminisce about the good old days of Operation Flashpoint. Post some classic screenshots (who could forget Sanctuary's Troska screens?), talk about missions, campaigns and MP experiences, post your favourite addons and so forth. I'll get the ball rolling. In late 2006 Tigershark (IIRC) launched an OFP podcast called Radio Check that discussed OFP, ArmA, mods, addons and mission editing. It was very nicely done and had a great format with bringing on key community members and having bloopers at the end. Time flies. You can still download them from the site below, just click 'read more'. http://www.sinewsofwar.com/Community/RadioCheckPodcasts/tabid/129/Default.aspx?ItemId=26

Well, something like this would be useful for mission editors. I think there was a thread for OFP that had information like this and links to various websites.

I play OFP, ArmA (not so much) and ArmA 2. The campaign, the 'atmosphere', the mods, the scripts, the missions, the campaigns and the addons. There are many of these things and they have added to the games lifespan immeasurably but at the end of the day I play it because I want to.

Beat me to it! Seeing everyone run around with a sniper rifle and AT weapon always makes me laugh. Oh the joys of A2 public MP. :D

Thanks for those links I'll have a look through them.

IIRC the UK held other nuclear option up until the late 1990s but with the threat of the USSR gone it would have been increasingly hard to justify their existence and cost. Submarine delivery systems can be moved and offer way more flexibility. Complete independent development of nuclear weapons would have been costly and very time consuming. The UK shared similar views and geo-political objectives so it was logical from that point of view as well to work with the US in nuclear weapons. This meant access to nuclear weapons produced by one of two of the world superpowers. No, they have not developed anything better than the UK has. Furthermore, there was no real need for the UK to pursue its own development in the areas you mention. By the end of WW2 the world had completely changed, it had killed off the Great Power system as the Western European nations had exhausted themselves and it had thus introduced the Superpower system which consisted of the US and USSR. Both of these countries filled the vacuum left by the European powers vastly increasing their power and commitments. Nuclear weapons became one of the key parts of this new power status. Sure, Britain and France eventually acquired their own arsenals but all this did was separate them from other powers and giving them more of a say in international affairs. The British and French no longer had they power they had before WW2 so they simply had no need to participate in the space race or solely develop their own nuclear weapons. Britain's nuclear weapons and coming aircraft carriers are important for maintaining a foothold as a global power of sorts. North Korea's pursuit of these weapons is to give it a big stick so it can stay a regional power and ward off any advances by the US. South Korea, on the other hand, doesn't really need them as it has the US Superpower as an ally. For the reasons mentioned above Britain had no need to bother itself with the space race and AFAIK it has worked with other friendly nations which has included the US, France (which AFAIK doesn't have much of a space program) and Russia. I can't recall cooperation with China. North Korea's launching of a satellite is more posturing than anything else, IMHO.