tracy_t

Hi just played the map. AI soldiers only open fire on the zombies after they get bit, and not before!! Bit poor having to wait for them to be attacked. Gotta say though, I LOVE being attacked by hundreds of zombies! It is fantastic! If you can get the AI to shoot the zombies as soon as spotted, then I reckon this map will rock!

Dammit. Can't get any of the links to work. And as y'all know, I just love zombie games lol Can anyone put the file up on a rather longer lasting server (ie: not Angelfire or Geocities) for download!!!! I really want to play this map. BTW: Hope that the soldiers open fire on the zombies in this version. In the previous version, AI soldiers wouldn't fire at the zombies and my team would be overrun Thank you. Tracy

If you can up the number of zombies and have them roam the island, you will be a God! There is a demand for zombies (check out the number of zombie movies released in the past year: house of the dead, 28 days later, resident evil...) and I bet loads of people would want to play a good mission. A single-player Dawn of the dead type mission (with choppers & soldiers) would be extremely popular, I would say. Regards, Tracy.

Tell you what D. Murphy man, I remember a year or so back when you originally posted about zombies in OFP, and everyone was saying "No! Don't, it will be shit!".  There seems to be a lot of interest in your mission. You're having the last laugh, lol Possible improvements: I would personally like to retexture some civilians, changing them into some gore-ridden zombies; right now the zombies just look - erm, gay  I would also like to add some ambient sounds - like the moaning of the dead as they hear food! Go to www.houseofhorrors.com (warning: gore) for textures & sounds from just about every great zombie movie. I also have some ideas for a "dawn of the dead" type mission: u know, grab a chopper, find food, shoot up some stiffs, watch the army get eaten! Here's what I'm thinking of: Instead of having 7 or 8 zombies spawning at trigger points, chasing the player as currently happens at the moment, why not have zombies walking around the map. Presuming you are WEST then that means you could have 128 x 12 zombies walking around the island attacking people. (I am using Resistance and East sides for zombies. Civilian units - e.g. people - would be custom made units, assigned to WEST side) The zombies would start in cities, then begin their quest for flesh, attacking any human they know about (see or hear). If they don't see a human they will wander off in a random direction, only changing direction if they wander into the sea or suchlike. To keep the fear factor up you could always make the zombies wander into given towns that they remember from their past life.  When a zombie is killed, another should be spawned immediately, to give the impression there is an unending horde. I would especially like to see marines squaring off against a horde of the undead (getting eaten in the end, of course.) Oh yeah, and zombies should be afraid of fire S. PS: possible bug: if you are in the PV3S civil truck the zombies can't get you, even if you are stationary.

Of course machine artificial intelligence is possible. after all, in a reductionist's eyes, what are we but biological machines? All we have to do is fully understand the processes of the brain Bn880's question about what intelligence actually *is* has been debated since time immemorial, and I dare say the argument will continue long after we are dead. There's a sobering thought for you. Personally, I don't think I will see Robots in our lifetime. But then again I'm 90 years old. J/k

Hi Bn880, nice suggestion. But, I think the UnderFire() function should be implemented in addition to your suggestions. I want my soldiers to take cover *only* when they are under fire, not when they are targetted by enemy troops. What if the enemy troops lying in a state of ambush, and are targetting my soldiers, but they are in a "hold fire" state, meaning they haven't fired a shot? Â Why should my soldiers run for cover? They might not know they're being targetted yet! PS: I don't like the fired event handler - it doesn't tell you where the bullet is aimed at according to the Flashpoint command reference. I suppose you'd have to use NearestObject to get a reference to the bullet and manually work out its trajectory!! Yuk Cheers, Tracy.

Yes. But in the Fired event handler, how do you know they are firing *at* you? What if you have a team and you want them to sneak up on a group, that are shooting in the opposite direction. You would have to determine the angle the shooter is facing (with GetDir I suppose.) to see if he is pointing in roughly your direction. This script becomes more complex when you have multiple shooters, I suppose. I forgot about the NearestObject function though

An UnderFire() routine, returning a boolean value indicating whether the unit is taking fire, would be appreciated. That way, we could script some of the more complex AI ourselves. I know there is a "IncomingMissile" event handler but it's not the same. ex: ? myAISoldier UnderFire() == true: myAISolder TakeCover(NEAREST_BUILDING) where NEAREST_BUILDING is a predefined BIS constant. And yes, TakeCover is a predefined function Obviously, UnderFire() would return false later, if the unit had not taken fire for a predetermined length of time, or the unit was sufficiently far away from the area of fire. Maybe a FireDirection() function could return a rough angle from where the AI unit believes the fire to be coming from. Regards, T. BTW: Why not have Visual Basic style script with an AutoComplete'ing IDE? That way even the idiots can script.

Actually Jinef, I see you have changed your avatar to be a Welsh dragon. Yakky-da, I see what you mean in your post now. Look you now, I'm away to have a pint

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ 09 May 2003,23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Of course, Â outside the Brits, Â most European militaries are third rate conscript forces which couldn't lose two battalions without folding. <span id='postcolor'> What a complete load of arrogant wank! I don't like to admit but we suck compared to the guys on the continent, the British are good against almost everyone we've fought so far but we always get thrashed in the NATO exercises. America usually comes out worse than Britain, it's no wonder they don't publish the results of these exercises, we would look like a bunch of schoolgirls against the Finns! Denoir back me up here. The British military is good, hey, when you are an evil empire and rule 1/3 of the world for 300 years you have to be. But the other European forces have shitloads more combat experience than the US like us and have very efficient militaries. I don't know what Brgnorway thinks about National service but there are some people who would promote it as a good source of discipline, there's a reason that Norway is the third cleanest country in the world you know, unlike the shitholes of cities down here in 'Great' Britain.<span id='postcolor'> Jinef, I think it's absolutely terrible that you run down Britain. If you don't like the place, just GO. Don't bitch about it! I believe our American cousins would be inclined to agree with the "love it or leave it" mentality, yes? I'm a proud Scotsman, and I say my country is one of the most beautiful in the world. I don't know where you live, but as I said, I would advise you to leave it immediately. Also, I have friends & family who serve in the army (Black Watch & REME to be precise) who would be dismayed by your derogatory comments about the British army and the "evil empire" it represents. Obviously you won't give a f**k as you are anonymous on this board - I expect some choice words in reply - but I will say if you are ex-army, I think you are a disgrace. Yours sincerely Scott T.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ 07 May 2003,22:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont think there is much need for 64bit computing in gaming for quite a long time. With 32bits you can address up to 4GB of memory, which should be plenty for any gaming system for a few more years. While x86-64 does also give some extra registers  which can improve even gaming performance, I dont think the difference is big enough to be worth the trouble of having to have both 32 and 64bit versions of the game available. In business level high-end applications (where also 64bit addressing is useful) its different since there is a need for 64bit even without the performance gain, so you can just make a 64bit software and market it to businesses who will buy 64bit compatible hardware for it. For games its the other way around, most people have a computer already and your game must run on it.<span id='postcolor'> I work as a developer myself, and I know 80x86 assembler- I KNOW I'd love 64 bit registers! Look at it from this point of view: memcpy's from system RAM to VRAM memory would be faster, as would applications (memcpy again, copying those large structs) and I know integer math (outside of the FPU) would be less hassle (ie: wouldn't use DX/EDX register.) I also think 64bit would afford greater precision in integer math, meaning greater precision in 3D graphics, meaning better looking Flashpoint. With DirectX, don't always assume the GPU will be doing the math EDIT: And don't always expect an FPU to do it I demand  64 bit - I want 64 bit registers!

Only two nukes eh? http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=403574 This is worrying.

I can't wait to see "VietCong Hammer" where you start out as an NVA member but defect to the American side!!!  Yes, I can see it now: Dimitry L - sorry, Hang No, NVA special forces soldier, working for General Hu-ba, realises that fighting against the American invaders is wrong because Capitalism = l337 and Communism is for fags. Regime change in North Vietnam is the "right" thing to do! Hang jumps on the nearest rickshaw and goes on a mass VC murdering spree, armed only with an AK47 and tins of Agent Orange lite. When you complete the game, the Outro depicts North Vietnam covered in McDonalds fast food joints, with hang munching a burger, gaining weight and dieing of a heart attack aged 55. This idea © Tracy_t. Now that I copyrighted the idea, this means BIS can't make this sort of game, thank Christ!

I can't wait to see "VietCong Hammer" where you start out as an NVA member but defect to the American side!!!  Yes, I can see it now: Dimitry L - sorry, Hang No, NVA special forces soldier, working for General Hu-ba, realises that fighting against the American invaders is wrong because Capitalism = l337 and Communism is for fags. Regime change in North Vietnam is the "right" thing to do! Hang jumps on the nearest rickshaw and goes on a mass VC murdering spree, armed only with an AK47 and tins of Agent Orange lite. When you complete the game, the Outro depicts North Vietnam covered in McDonalds fast food joints, with hang munching a burger, gaining weight and dieing of a heart attack aged 55. This idea © Tracy_t. Now that I copyrighted the idea, this means BIS can't make this sort of game, thank Christ!

Erm, Baron - I'm running a 3Ghz PC with Radeon 9700 Pro and 1Gb of RAM. I've set the graphics settings to 800x600 @60Hz (60Hz doesn't strain the adapter so much.) Are you telling me my PC's not good enough? No matter what settings I have and how far I drop the view distance this happens, so what gives? So, tell me what you know about LODs in OFP models? Feel free to explain in technical detail: I work as a software engineer abd am quite well versed in graphics programming so I'm sure I'll understand you. I await your reply.

Rescue the clown?!!! What do you mean? Never heard of that mission I'm not trying to be an argumentative arse (my missus does that very well lol) but I am 100% certain that there's no flanking. I believe the AI just sends random enemy troops in random directions. Consider this: If the AI really flanks, why does it just send 1 soldier at a time? Why not 2 or 3? Don't get me wrong, I love OFP - but the AI needs to be updated to be a more aggressive, intelligent fighter. Instead of working on fancy vertex shading and specular lighting, BIS should put their energies into the AI. And make the soldiers RUN when they are under fire in the open, dammit! I wonder if any of the BIS team would care to comment on the flanking AI? Apart from "you're banned"

I believe BIS need to address the "Pop-Up" graphical effect present in OFP, because it's a total nuisance. How best to explain? Hmm... In game, stand ~20ft away from any tree. Now, walk slowly towards the tree; you will notice that the tree suddenly sprouts branches and leaves. I find that really disconcerting - I think something's jumping out at me! (Attack of the killer trees, lol) Yes, I know it's probably to do with LODs and the like, but I am sure OFP could "scale" the objects far better than they do now. And Bn880, love your idea about TruForm. I have an ATI 9700 myself and it's so underused by current games, it's a crime (sniff)

The control system in OFP is too long winded, and this leads to much ass-kicking during firefights. I would prefer a context menu accessible via right mouse button (which I usually have mapped to "reveal target" - it's no big loss) for example: Move --- Move North Move South Move East Move West You also need a "reload" command for units. It's mind numbing telling them to pick up each individual rocket and M16 mag!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DayGlow @ 24 April 2003,23:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For myself one of the biggest things lacking in all combat simulations is an ai with more 'human' like qualities. The ai in OFP is very good taticaly, using gernades and flanking manouvers, but it is still lacking suppressive fire.<span id='postcolor'> Flanking maneuvres? Where? I've never seen the OFP AI try any effective flanking maneuvres whatsoever. In the every contact I've had with the veteran/ super AI, the enemy has sat on their arse while I've picked them off with an M21 or HK etc. BTW, I'm no noob, I've had OFP for nearly two years now. I'm running a super fast PC, so don't tell me my PCs too slow for the AI to "think" about tactics either. Now, Close Combat on the PC - there was real flanking If you call a single enemy AI soldier running in a random direction, or directly towards you a flanking maneuvre, so be it. I await the usual crap replies etc, but before you turn flame mode ON, play OFP for a bit, for example on the "Bomber Man" single mission. Tell me if you were flanked by the AI. I bet you're not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ 30 April 2003,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 30 April 2003,13:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 29 April 2003,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 29 April 2003,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose. Also, I don't understand why you think China would want to save North Korea? How did they come into this discussion? Have they sided with NK? I haven't heard any such talk. I realise China was involved in the last Korean war but that was 50 years ago. China must feel threatened by Kim Jung Il, surely.<span id='postcolor'> as many said, not enough to annihilate whole US. so US will make sure NK gets nuked. China ans NK have mutual support treaty that states if NK is attacked, China will help to defend NK. that expired in 90s, but new treat, although lesser in strength of terms on paper, pretty much says the same thing. for China, havin SK+US right next to their boarder is more threat than current NK since China will be influenced more in western styles and thought, which caused Tianamen square.<span id='postcolor'> Oh, I expect the Americans would counterattack, I know that - they would be warned of a nuclear launch by Satellite - but that's not what I meant. The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think. Those who weren't evaporated in the immediate blasts (note the plural) would be engulfed by the radioactive fallout. Unlikely? Don't kid yourself. Look at the Chernobyl disaster - a similar yield in comparison to an A-Bomb (apologies to my Russian friends for trivialising it) and we in the UK, hundreds of miles away, are still being contaminated years on. (Do you remember the stories about sheep eating contaminated grass? http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-34886.html ) It really pisses me off to see America invading a benign Iraq on the pretext of "WMDs" and finding nothing (so far), yet North Korea is blatantly flouting their Atomic wares, threatening all and sundry, with the US sitting on their hands doing squat. And someone's already said NK has no oil <span id='postcolor'> Hardly! According to your logic, all the nuclear testing done would have exterminated all life on the planet several times over. Chernobal was not a nuclear detonation in the classic sense, and therefore did not have the same 'yeild'. The fact that the building is still standing is testament to that. In this case, the reactor exploded, but did not go critical. This drove the reactor through several floors of concrete, and the resulting destruction of the reactor, and the following fire, allowed radioactive dust to disperse. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think.<span id='postcolor'> The Russians would stand a good chance, as thery have a massive standing arsenal. N Korea? 2 bombs? Hardly. Worst case scenario, two cities are destroyed, fallout moves with prevailing winds. Severe disruption to agriculture in area. Mass decomtamination required to ensure civilian safety. Fallout also depends on the bomb used. If you want to be a utter fucker, you can strap a cobalt jacket onto it. That will irradiate the city it falls on,and make it unlivable for the forseeable future. Besides, look at Japan. They survived two A-Bombs, and the resulting radiation, although at  a cost.<span id='postcolor'> Erm, Badgerboy, How can you compare uncontrolled (Chernobyl) with controlled nuclear tests --> "According to your logic, all the nuclear testing ' done would have exterminated all life on the planet several times over."  Did you not READ the contents of the hyperlink? I mean, it did say that Chernobyl produced a yield 100 times more potent than Hiroshima ffs!! For God's sake man, do you really need to hear a bang before you understand the after-effects? Also, where did you get the 2 bombs figure from? CNN? lol. BTW: who was talking about the Russian arsenal? Why did that come into the conversation? And tell me, how can the US "decontaminate" an area? If they could, how come the UK hasn't done it (see previous hyperlink.)

Yes, I see what you mean, but then by your logic that means Bush & Blair knew Saddam had no WMD, otherwise they wouldn't have invaded Iraq, right? Or were they willing to trade, say, the existence of Kuwait and Turkey, for removal of Saddam? Just thinking aloud. Right. As they say in Germany, alle ist klar!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 29 April 2003,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ 29 April 2003,19:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose. Also, I don't understand why you think China would want to save North Korea? How did they come into this discussion? Have they sided with NK? I haven't heard any such talk. I realise China was involved in the last Korean war but that was 50 years ago. China must feel threatened by Kim Jung Il, surely.<span id='postcolor'> as many said, not enough to annihilate whole US. so US will make sure NK gets nuked. China ans NK have mutual support treaty that states if NK is attacked, China will help to defend NK. that expired in 90s, but new treat, although lesser in strength of terms on paper, pretty much says the same thing. for China, havin SK+US right next to their boarder is more threat than current NK since China will be influenced more in western styles and thought, which caused Tianamen square.<span id='postcolor'> Oh, I expect the Americans would counterattack, I know that - they would be warned of a nuclear launch by Satellite - but that's not what I meant. The US would not exist *after* the bombs landed. The people would be annihilated contrary to what you think. Those who weren't evaporated in the immediate blasts (note the plural) would be engulfed by the radioactive fallout. Unlikely? Don't kid yourself. Look at the Chernobyl disaster - a similar yield in comparison to an A-Bomb (apologies to my Russian friends for trivialising it) and we in the UK, hundreds of miles away, are still being contaminated years on. (Do you remember the stories about sheep eating contaminated grass? http://www.unian.net/eng/news/news-34886.html ) It really pisses me off to see America invading a benign Iraq on the pretext of "WMDs" and finding nothing (so far), yet North Korea is blatantly flouting their Atomic wares, threatening all and sundry, with the US sitting on their hands doing squat. And someone's already said NK has no oil

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 28 April 2003,19:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">on serious note, if NK actually attacks US, then they can kiss their existence good bye. I won't be surprised if world will show same, if not harsher stance, in dealing a severe punishment such as nuking the peninsula thoroughly. I don't think China would dare to stop US from attacking NK if that happens.<span id='postcolor'> But surely if NK attacks the US, then the US can kiss its existence goodbye as well? Both parties have atomic weapons and I doubt NK has anything to lose. Also, I don't understand why you think China would want to save North Korea? How did they come into this discussion? Have they sided with NK? I haven't heard any such talk. I realise China was involved in the last Korean war but that was 50 years ago. China must feel threatened by Kim Jung Il, surely.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LandShark-AL @ 26 April 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We know what go's on in NK U.S. and SK Spec ops go in and out of NK like its a walmart.<span id='postcolor'> Oh really? Where did you get that information? CNN - that "trusted" bastion of news? Or Fox News - that objective paragon of prose I don't believe one cent of it. Sending spec ops into a country on a knife-edge, one that appears to WANT war, wouldn't be the most clever plan. You don't want to aggravate North Korea, that's for sure, not when it has a real nuclear capability and a madman for president. I believe there will be a war between the US and North Korea, for sure, but the US cannot win unless the American public is prepared to take incredible casualties (e.g: the 37,000 US soldiers in South Korea). A war in North Korea would have to be fought on the ground. Cruise missiles, JDAMs and C130 spectres won't work too well against soldiers hiding in dense vegetation, using tunnel networks. The main factor is that North Korea's army is prepared for war, as is the civilian population who apparently hate the Americans with a passion. Can you say that about the American public - are they so passionate about destroying NK? Don't get me wrong, North Korea needs to be brought to heel, but I believe the US will need help from the UN this time. (Closer to home: I just hope Britain doesn't get involved in any war - it's bad enough fighting in mountainous terrain, but more of our boys getting cut to pieces by "friendly" fire? Â Â )

Some spec op! I thought soldiers were supposed to keep their mouth shut - you know, careless talk costs lives? Oh well.