.pablo.

hey, i spent a few days of intensive scripting optimizing and adding stuff to the original cast away mission when it was originally released, and i learned one thing: this mod is going to require a LOT of scripting, so get yourself a lot of people who are good at that, and then rotate work on the project. also, release weekly "builds" of the mission on some private forum where you can discuss things to add and have outsiders contribute ideas or scripts (doing it in this thread might become a little messy); the wargames team used a weekly build system when developing its 5th release and it worked beautifully, a lot more was added than would have been otherwise. so remember: scriptors + frequent releases = success good luck.

thanks stuntman, i feel better now anyway, to keep this on topic: - turning the map, compass, and watch into 3d (viewable from other people´s perspectives) objects will require anims for every possible position a player might be in when accessing them (lying down, standing up, sitting in a plane, etc.) i´m not sure if the engine currently supports that type of addition, so its something they would definitely have to experiment with...

somebody actually read something i posted but notice it wasn´t called "brilliant" until you said it capitan why does this keep happening to me??? I WAS THE ONE WHO BEGGED SANCTUARY TO MAKE PATROL ANIMS, PEOPLE!  GIMME SOME CREDIT HERE!!

That`s probably a wrong thinking m8! They`ve said we have to attack "southern" targets, Placee said that trucks are friendly, so there`s not much left to choose. What`s still confusing me is that on the official page  says: southern targetS... Southern means "Allegiance" not the direction of the attack... and since there isnt any compass indicator on the picture, assuming top is the north would not be wise according to tactical perception. placebo has said that western (american) units are to be considered ¨southern allegiance¨while eastern (russian) units are to be considered ¨northern allegiance¨.  in other words, funnyguy1 has it right. edit: here´s the quote, from page two of this thread: edit #2: since no one has replied to the points i made above (esp. the one regarding the TDGs), i will post an example TDG to give an idea of some of the information that might be useful to give people for the current contest: and the accompanying picture: this TDG can be found here.

first off, very cool idea BIS secondly, there are definitely some questions that need to be addressed: 1. as others have brought up, there seems to be only one armored target on the southern sahrani side, not to mention that it is stuffed into a corner while the rest of the screenshot has northern units... 2. due to the current pixel-by-pixel choice, i can see a lot of people essentially choosing the same spot but having different coordinates. will the selection be made by whichever person gets the exact coordinates or will anyone within a certain radius (say, 5-10 pixels) be taken to the second round? 3. another issue brought up by others is the lack of information regarding the situation. i would suggest checking out some of the marine corps gazette´s tactical decision games (TDGs) for an idea of what information is useful (and realistic) to have: http://www.mca-marines.org/Gazette/tdgpdf.html

nice! request: include the IPs for the game/TS servers in the first post also, what are the server settings with regards to 3rd person and crosshair? (and any other server-specific info you might think of)

- the ability to create dynamic gunsights (ie have information on screen about your position, target's position, distance to target, ammo information, etc.) - the ability to desaturate/invert the screen for gunsights (make it look more like thermal vision) - the ability to add/define new sides, and the ability to define the relationship between various sides, both with addons, in the mission editor, and in game via scripts in general, i just want BIS to give the addon/mission makers more control over the game.

i want to see the compass have to be pulled out in your hand, like the binocs...with the ability to move around with it in your hand (but only being readable when you're moving at a walking pace or slower), which needs to be done for the binocs as well...

dont ask how fade works, thats opening a can of worms you dont want to have to deal with... and to answer your question: probably not, as long as you are the only one using the cd key.

you can try to contact the seller and ask him what the CD key is, but if he doesnt respond, i would recommend that you buy the game of the year edition from codemasters for $10 (+ s&h). edit: and yes, the cd is worthless without the cd key (from my understanding of it)

phaeden beats another person to a response...w/e ill leave my post up anyway... that kind of error would probably be considered "low priority" unless it started popping up all the time; it sounds like the mission probably was converted earlier in WGL5's development, when the "pipebomb" it is referring to still existed (or existed under a different name/class). you can probably change the color yourself by editing one of the game files (Q has been telling people to do it if they dont like the bright yellow GUI, i assume you can use the same method to edit the radio) sounds like a good idea to me, {edit: phaeden knows more about this than i do, so ill leave the answer to him} what needs to be done (iirc) is to have the "#" symbol added in front of the groups, so that they show up at the top (this is done for the "unit" menu, but not for the "group" menu, unless it was changed for the final release in which case idk what it looks like). Â i noticed this a while ago but forgot to post about it. because the missions were converted with a text editor (literally a big "find and replace" script) and not by hand, so many missions probably arent quite right. it used to be like that but was changed when someone pointed out that it might offend russian players (not to mention the strange potential circumstance of playing the russian side and referring to yourself as OPFOR) yeah those annoyed me as well, but then i kind of got used to them. Â the "squadengine" line should be changed just because the WGL mod isnt using squadengine anymore. Â i think you can turn off the lines by editing a game file, ask on the WGL forums for more info. not 100% sure, but i think phaeden did unofficial work for vbs1 (ie just modding), and idk what the story is for vbs2. Â thinking about it now, considering he does all the visual effects for WGL (and CoC Arty), i wouldn't be surprised if he was responsible for the vbs1 arty effects, and whatever effects vbs2 might be using...

i thought the day would never come...

1. AI needs to be improved (taking cover needs to be added) 2. game mechanics need to be improved (no more running 10km with no effect)

buy the "game of the year" (GOTY) edition from codemasters' website (might have to look look around for it), it's only $10 (plus S&H). then all you have to do is install the GOTY 1.96 patch and whatever addons you're going to use for online play. for groups to play with, check out CiA's co-op nights (if they're still running), or the Zeus server co-op nights (if they're still running). ask around to see when people play. if you like realism above all else, check out the wargamesleague mod (aka WG, WGL), as they're always looking for new blood: Wargames Mod Wiki Wargames Mod Forums

yeah i still got addicted to it, i'm not saying that it's a bad game; there's just things about it that i'm not really into, notably: 1. instantly being able to move from one side of the world to the other 2. bad horse controls 3. arrows that don't move at realistic velocities 4. choosing skills to level up rather than developing skills solely by their use (i know that it uses a combination of the two, but i just was never into the whole idea of being able to increase my archery ability without firing a single arrow) with all of these complaints, i'm basically comparing the game to mount&blade.

i was actually kind of disappointed with the game, from the descriptions i had read about it i was expecting something more...not to mention the bugs and the insane computer requirements...

add one more proponent to your list; if nothing else, i want to see bodies of water at various elevations, and no more magically appearing water at sea level. come on BIS, make it happen!

wow, i have to say that looks really good. i might've been wrong about someone else having started a similar project, i honestly can't remember too well.

i'd love to see your pics! also, check out this fas.org website, it has the entire city available as a single image at 1 meter resolution (12mb). good stuff: http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/fallujah.html and did you really just start? i recall seeing pictures in some forum a couple months ago where someone was making a map of fallujah; was that you?

making a special texture for every 50x50m square in the city (like in the swedish military island we've all seen pics of) would be impossible for a city with an area of 6kmx5km. why? a texture limit of 512. to do the math: 6km=6000m 6000m/50m=120 grids 5km=5000m 5000m/50m=100 grids 120 grids x 100 grids = 12,000 textures, a bit over the 512 limit - you could consider creating custom textures for just the grids with roads on them, but if there really are as many roads as you say there are, you would probably go over the limit that way as well. - you could use textures for only some of the roads (perhaps for the most object-dense parts of the city), and maybe edit the textures to use the sand texture you're already using (so you won't have to create transition textures). this is the best option in my opinion (if you really don't mind the work), though i would still be wary of the 512 limit. to get a bit off-topic, i've actually been looking for pictures of this island since i found the 1m satellite image of the city that i'm assuming you're using, but i couldn't find any mention of it anywhere and just gave up. do you have a villagephotos account or something where you post pictures of your progress? i'd really love to see what it looks like now. but an even bigger question (and to get even more off-topic): how did you approach getting location information from the satellite image onto the island? in other words, how did you make sure that everything would be in the right place, and that you wouldn't end up 50% of the way through making the island only to discover that things weren't aligned properly? did you just build "out" from one location? sorry if i'm not making sense, but i'm just paranoid about having roads and such not being in their exact positions on my island, and i can't figure out any set way to make sure i won't make a mistake...

lol, and now he's gonna get 10 people telling him how rude he is. there's no winning i guess. anyway, i just wanted to say that you guys are doing an awesome job, and i really look forward to any releases. i'm also curious about how you guys are approaching the gamplay shift from an RTS to OFP. i know i thought a lot about this when i imagined what a starcraft mod for ofp might be like; the one problem i always ran into was the vast difference in combat: whereas in a typical RTS you either hit or you don't, and it takes several hits to kill even a soldier, OFP can be fairly accurately described as closer to the opposite end of the spectrum (one hit kills, or at least one hit disables). what are your thoughts on balancing OFP gameplay with CnC gameplay?

a full SRS wouldn't be possible as i'm pretty sure BIS doesn't have the money to run the necessary super-servers to keep track of these things (as well as the fact that "unlocking" stuff wouldn't really work too well in ofp). what i think would be cool, though, was if the person you selected to play as in a given mission was only "skilled" in certain areas, so you couldn't drive a tank or fly a helicopter if you were just an infantry grunt, shoot an AA missile if you were a machinegunner, shoot a machinegun if you were a medic, etc. the skills could be set by the mission maker and/or addon maker, and even changed mid-game (start out as a civilian, resistance officer teaches you how to shoot a rifle, your accuracy greatly increases, your recoil greatly decreases, etc.). and the player could have varying effects based on whether they were skilled in similar areas. for example: an mi-24 pilot could probably figure out how to fly an ah-64 (or no?) but maybe not handle it as well, a rifleman could probably use a machinegun, but perhaps not handle the recoil as well, etc. just an idea...

gotta go with the gavin! actually i don't have a favorite armored vehicle in ofp, i just voted for it because of this hilarious pro-gavin, anti-stryker, anti-bradley, anti-hmmwv page that i saw a while back: <span style='color:blue'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>M113 GAVIN AIRBORNE ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLE IN COMBAT</span></span>

thank you so much planck! i don't know what i'd do without you!

Planck: ok, after a 2 week hiatus, i'm going to try to make some more progress with my map; the first problem i've run into is that the merged DEM you sent me already had the missing data filled in! can you explain to me where you found the data (as in exact links, i remember you got it from the same website as i did), or send me the original merged DEM (if you still have it)? thank you!