Aculaud

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ Sep. 25 2002,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's already an AWM in the Lost Brothers HK Pack. Not that I'm saying this one shouldn't be made - just for Aculaud's attention. Â <span id='postcolor'> Dont know that i ever tried that one. Could you tell me where to find it?

In that case, you should go for 10. Its a totally realistic amount for a sniper rifle to hold, and it really should be able to compare to the games other rifles as well for playability's sake. My opinion anyhow.

10, all AW rifles carry 10 to the clip as far as i know

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (quakergamer @ Sep. 23 2002,19:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hello all, I have finished my new AWM (Artic Warfare magunm). Its a very nice sniper rifle and i think it will be a nice addon . So check this picture and tell me what you think about. *note*its not my skin... http://www.multimania.com/quakergamer1/awpromo.jpg<span id='postcolor'> **Drooling**Uncontrolably** When is this thing coming out?!?!?!?! Edit: Nevermind, saw the rest of the title

1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Sep. 23 2002,201)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok now boys, stop spamming <span id='postcolor'> Funny, i never saw no having fun under the forum rules

WHA! HOUH! Yeeeahh.. What is----- it GOOD fo Absolutely NUTHIN! Listen to meh! WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHAR! HOUH, GUTE Gawd Ya'll!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Sep. 23 2002,19:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would like to be able to put engines in reverse thrust mode when on the ground, for sum things it mite not ber realistic but it is needed much better than havin to push the plane back with a tank when u get in an awkward position.<span id='postcolor'> Interestingly enough, youre absolutely right. I hate geting stuck in the corner of a hanger or something when trying to park

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Sep. 23 2002,18:41)</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">the Beretta holds 15 rounds, and its nomenclature is the M9, not the 92F. <span id='postcolor'> The company designation is the 'Beretta 92FS' FS = Full Size. The M9 is the designation that the U.S. military gave it.<span id='postcolor'> yeah, thats what i meant. Sorry

If you're looking for means with which to wage war, you can't go wrong with the Federation of American Scientists: Military Analysis Network

Anyone else, please correct me if i'm wrong, but as far as i know, the Beretta holds 15 rounds, and its nomenclature is the M9, not the 92F. The Glock 17 holds 18 rounds per mag, and does not have any other fire rate besides semi auto. Its cousin, the Glock18 however, does. The Glock18 can go either full auto, or 3-round burst, but i forgot which.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jester983 @ Sep. 23 2002,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like aculaud said they are too ammo conservative. They fire 50 rounds of 30mm then give up. I think they should keep going until they either run out of ammo or kill their target.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, my point was that they are TOO trigger happy. They arent good shots at all, so they just end up wasting all their ammo, and then they have nothing left, so they just fly around sight seeing. But i'm happy you agree anyway </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Sep. 23 2002,17:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OFP was not built to be a flight sim, and it shows. The view distance is way to short to accomodate faster planes, like the F-16, Tornado, and even the A-10 and SU-25. It's better suited to slower planes like the OV-10 Bronco, the Cessna, and choppers. An attempt at a banking turn in a plane results in the plane dropping like a rock, which does not happen in real life. I would like to see a complete overhaul of the physics engine, AI ablity, realism, especially in tanks and choppers, and a better AI which can actually fly the aircraft properly.<span id='postcolor'> Iv actually comtemplated weather or not OFP would do better having Aircraft be strictly AI controlled. This would allow for them to be scripted in such a way that they would behave dramatically better. There would be more options availible for mission makers, and there could be more of them, because, since you wouldnt need to see the inside at all or even be able to use them, i would think they'd be easier for the developers to make. Say you had an AC-130 spectre flying close air support over an infantry operation with you as a soldier. You might be able to do things like place a user defined marker on the map, and radio for it to attack the markers area, so any enemy units or structers around the marker would be engaged by it. Or, you could have it so that, if a team member identified a heavy/armored enemy unit, the plane would automatically target and engage it. It would be cool to set it up on a close air support behaviour like that, so it only engages the targets that you cannot. And then the laser guided bomb strikes. If you had the air units be under strict AI control, maybe you could have it set up so that, when you point the laser designater at something and activate it, you activate a script that makes an F16 or F18 come to that location and release a bomb set for that target. And then you could limit the number of strikes availible in the units attributes in the editer, and it would just stay on site until it had used all its ordinance. You could do the same thing with choppers. If you implimented markers that meant something to the game, like a "base" marker for defining the location that the air support goes to re-arm and re-fuel, you could put an A10 or an Apache in a mission for air support, and then they just go to that marker when they need more ammo, and you could have some ammo trucks there that it would re-arm at. Transports might get a little trickier, because those you do need to see the inside of, and you do have to be able to use them to an extent. To make transports truely effective under AI control, you might need to impliment things like rapelling / fast roping to have a means of insertion when the ground is too rough.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Sep. 23 2002,18:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We need some B-52s to come in and bomb the carp out of the enemy. <span id='postcolor'> Duke, we're trying to keep this conversation of an intelligent nature. If you insist on being the village idiot, please do so in the off-topic section.

I was just wondering what the OFP community thought of the games airborne features. I was just playing around in the mission editer, and i noticed a few things. The games current air units, under AI control, are terrible shots even at full skill, and are very indiscriminate about ammo conservation. An A10 will often use two missiles on the same tank, even after its been destroyed, and attack choppers often just guess where the target is while using unguided weapons such as FFARs and 57MM rockets. Its like they just try and get it close. I was playing around with the new OV10 Bronco addon, and its got some beautiful potential. I set up this scenario where i had a single T80 driving along this road, and i practiced on it with the unguided weapons such as the heavier bombs the Bronco carries sometimes. I found it really cool to target the tank, and fly directly overhead, release a couple bombs, and then go to the command view and watch them hit almost directly on it. THIS is a great "Air Support" unit, but it would never behave this way under AI control. I can personally see some correction needed just in the way AI units fly. I'll watch an A10 engage targets, and it just EMPTIES its rockets onto maybe one or two units, and then its out of ammo. And then i'll see it dodge back and forth trying its hardest to maintain its stability like its got a child at the controls. As far as transports go, i think they do ok for the most part, but the pilots need to get some balls before heading out on  mission. Often, it'll take them ages to set down somewhere to let infantry out if there are a lot of trees or rocks around, or if the land slopes even the tiniest bit. I think they should be set up to just get as close to the ground as possible, so maybe they wont be able to land fully, but they can at least get close enough to let the cargo out. Otherwise, they're just sitting there as target practice for anyone with a machine gun or rocket launcher. Anyway, just fealt like ranting. What say you, the people?

Ya got me, man, i just live here, thats all

wow................last time i was turned on by weapons in a computer game was the Barrett M82A1 in DF:LW...............and here it is again! One complaint, the scopes are just stupid. First, they need to be a LOT closer range, second they need to be original models, and third they need to have original optics. Other than the scopes, these things RULE!!!