Baphomet

I voted "Yes" mainly because even though a female soldier might not fit in relative to the subject matter of say vietnam or perhaps whatever the theme is directed at. But many people no doubt will make their own mods and themes based on them, and if they want to make scantily clad tomb-raider wannabees they should be at least given the option to do so. The great thing about OFP is it's flexible in many ways. So why not carry on that tradition? Female soldiers for those who want them.

I've introduced -many- people to OFP and they've all, unless they were your average unsophisticated monkey who'd rather play the uninspired grist of the first person gaming mill. They were all immediately hooked. People obsessed with graphics usually aren't sophisticated enough to understand the benefits of this game. Ofttimes I've had people complain about "blocky trees" or the models being "too small" at a distance. To those people I responded, criticizing the fact that they couldn't run OFP at an acceptably high resolution that the trees looked decent. I also made reference to the fact that most of them never, ever go outside and that they wouldn't know the acceptable size of something at a distance if they tried since they're too busy sitting on their ass playing games with everything at a maximum of fifty meters in front of them. To the average monkey, fifty meters is a long way. They're just completely baffled and coldcocked when you can see for the better part of a kilometer (and then some if you've got the machine for it). Much like how a primitive proto-man might be baffled and afraid of a fire started by a freak lightning strike. They might shy away at something new and unfarmiliar. =P When I told my cousin about it he got hooked. He landed a job at a large computer store and actually started extoling the virtues of ofp amongst his ranks and they actually played quite a few large games on the company LAN. Furthermore, he received a commendation for moving more copies of OFP out the door than any other salesperson because of his experience, knowledge and liking of the game. Unfortunately many people up here didn't know anything about it and they were quite impressed when they were introduced to a product they didn't think existed. Many people from the Canadian forces base in my city were all Ghost Recon enthusiasts until my cousin converted them to OFP-heads. =P. Many of which bought new computers or upgrades from his store just to play the game better. So it just goes to show that OFP does appeal to those with more discriminating and sophisticated tastes. Which explains why here where I live, there wasn't a lot of buzz about it. I sell people on the idea of expandability which OFP has in spades, the versatility and freedom to let you do what you want, and the community support to keep the gaming fresh and innovative by means of scripts, missions and addons.

Yes... Trespasser did have all those things albeit wrapped up into a bug ridden (yet still enjoyable to a fault) package back in 1998. Yet it also had the most ridiculous system requirements out of any game that year. Many people came away hating the game for it's bugs and excessive hardware requirements. I wouldn't want BIS to get ahead of themselves and pull a "trespasser" if you know what I mean.

I think you were mistaking what I said Phil. Obviously the creator was talented enough to make a fairly good representation of a barbie-doll for OFP. I'm not slighting his skills in the least. His abilities aside... I'm simply talking about how a fairly large section of the OFP community seems to regard the amazon's presence in a game such as this as nothing more than a running joke (as represented by the many prominent OFP sites I've seen that have "screens of the day" with the amazon in a comprimising position). It is too in my opinion. No offence to the guy who made it. But it is a joke. It's a fantastically proportioned woman with the whole Lara-Croft-crossed-with-a-stripper theme applied to it. As far as prudish? Not at all. But if I want to see a woman like that I can pretty much look anywhere else where modern media has extended it's grasp. In a game that has made a name for itself on quality of substance over providing jiggling boobies as a selling point it's just funny to me. I'm glad BIS didn't cheapen it's product by doing what everyone else does to their games and add some busty chick to draw in the "horny 13 year old" demographic. Ofp went on to become very successful without it. It's just a refreshing change of pace. I'm a big fan of beautiful women dressed in skimpy clothing, just not when it's absurdly out of place. I feel insulted when a company asserts that I am too unsophisticated to enjoy something unless it has boobs or scantily clad girls in it.

Give technology a chance to advance a few years and then we'll see about all those fancy features.

Hm. Box models? What do you mean by that? I'm interested in knowing what you mean. I'm assuming you don't mean using less polys right? I mean it's ofp and all... it's not going to be doom3. Or halflife 2.

Again with another narrow-minded treatise attempting to draw some kind of corelation between a battlefield simulator and some "shooter". OFP as I've looked at it is a general purpose simulator. However the focus and I say rightly so, is on large scale combat. There isn't a single game like it in terms of the quality of simulation. As far as "winning" any marketing war. I hope. I pray. BIS doesn't bastardize OFP2 by pandering to the idiot masses to make a few extra bucks. How many games that are virtually all the same in capabilities (MOHAA, Ghost Recon, Raven Shield, Counterstrike, DoD, Half-life) do we need? Saying that BIS needs to perpetuate such mediocrity is nothing short of blasphemy in my opinion. Yes. Trite little features like inverse kinematics and all that other stuff that makes a game more fun for about 10 extra minutes is nice. I can't stress this enough. It shouldn't be the focal point. If at the end of all of it they can somehow manage to squeeze some of it in then fine. It's sad to see narrow minded people who can't see the big picture. Ofp offers so much more than that.

Well damn. It appears I've run into an inexplicable problem. This might well because the addon is just messed up somehow but when I add the weapon to the list specifying both the ammo and the weapon. Then I try to order it from a crate in game. I can get the weapon but when I click the button to add the ammo, nothing happens. If you or anyone else comes across this problem I'd be interested to know the circumstances of it better so I can get to the root of it. [update] Interesting. I tried adding a weapon from the HK pack (beauty patched) just to test it. It did the same thing. Yet I tried with a micro uzi addon and it worked just fine.... very strange.

I've a question about it before I download. Is it all just smashed into one big gigantic PBO? Or can you with a level of reasonability since it's so large and I'm assuming some addons will have their dependencies (units/weapons, etc) pick certain pbo files and just fiddle around with the individual units? Some of it looks neat. However I'm not sure sure I want to have to use the whole package to just fiddle around with some neat toys.

It's working great. I followed the instructions you supplied and added a vehicle to beginning of both the westtype and easttype list so they show up as the same addon regardless of the team and it respawned successfully. So everything's great now. I showed it to a few people last night actually and we're going to try it out on the LAN sometime soon. On a side note. Is there any unforseen ill effect that might happen in the game if I just delete the getin.sqs and remove the highlighted line from players.sqs? <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> #getin ?vehicle _p == _p : goto "continue" _p exec "getin.sqs" <------- goto "continue" I have done so and I've tested it a bit with no adverse results.

Thanks for the response. I know you're busy and all. I really appreciate it though. Basically I just wanted to add a little flavor to the mix by throwing in a few respawnable addons. Nothing much really. Perhaps one of Klink's A4s or perhaps some kind of addon vehicle... maybe a KLr250. I tried modifying the init.sqs list so that the addon vehiclenames were in there but obviously that wasn't the solution. Since my CWK_A4f was turning into an A10 when it respawned. That's pretty much it. Just knowing how to toss a few new addons here and there to keep things fresh, knowing they'll respawn and that'd be excellent.

Well... accurate in the sense that trying to hit something at anything beyond 40m. Or perhaps less. I swim 500m in a 50m length pool at the local fitness centre and when I look at it end to end it's a pretty far distance. If you were cranking rounds off like crazy and you weren't running too fast you could probably land a hit by using the accuracy by volume strategy. however... heavy guns as far as I know are better for recoil than light guns. Â Not versus light caliber weapons but the added heft, so long as you can lift it. Inhibits the gun from climbing more. So yes in a light jog you could probably spray and pray giving you a 50/50 chance to hit at 20m with an automatic weapon. By light jog I mean enough so that you can still reasonably control where the gun is pointing and your arms aren't jiggling all over the damn place.

I'm not sure about other weapons but the Xm177e2's muzzle flash from what I've seen is spot-on. It's notorious for having such ungodly sized eyebrow-scorching flashes which is one of the reasons why it underwent several revisions until it ended up being the colt commando. Incidentally the same gun was intended to be for use with downed helicopter, or disabled tank crews. However the gun had a fair amount of design complications... not to mention it's overall inefficient size.

Bah. I give up. Trying to modify the vehicles.sqs proved to be harder than finding a ham sandwich up a hog's arse.

What I mean is. Not the weapons themselves in cargo but the cargo as in passengers. If you have the choice to create a unit already in the vehicle... is there a portion of the script that determines what unit spawns inside the vehicle? If not then I have to use my custom cargo pack which is basically all the regular vehicles in the game using my weapon pack for the drivers.

Basically remove any trace of ofp's standard infantry weapons. Replace them with weapons/units carrying them of my choosing. Unfortunately because of the way the scripts work I don't think that the vehicles manufactured would just place the new units in the new vehicles correct? So that means a pack of vehicles specifically made (which I have) that come standard with units already using the weapons. I have to do this basically because the ofp weapons would create a general conflict of interest with the weapons pack. So any trace of them must not be found in the game... crew, infantry or otherwise. It sounds like it'd be quite difficult to do for someone not used to doing a lot of tricky scripting. Or understanding it. Heh.

Problem with trespasser which I wouldn't want to see in ofp2 is the fact that they undershot the time they should have released the game by quite a few months. If you read any review on the game for it's time people complained bitterly on how the game ran so unplayably horrible on any system save the absolute fastest of the time. Which I believe was a P2 450mhz with dual voodoo2 in SLI mode. Of course people in the minority with money to burn or kids whose every whim is subsidized by the bank of mom and dad won't be affected but I think it's a sobering reminder that focusing on what's important before applying attention to piddly little details should be a priority.

Well it's an interesting feature but I usually like a bit more variety heh. Â I personally just like the territory capturing aspect, the position switching and the fact that I made it so that -all- positions are capturable so the enemy has to hold at least one position or they spawn way the hell out in nowhere (usually in the water) and thus the opponent wins by annihilation =D Damn.... even with that disabled addons placed in the maps they still seem to respawn as something else....

I heard someone say Kegetys made a tutorial or something for visitor? Where can I get that?

I've looked through some of this and hm. It's not as clean cut and modular as I would have hoped. If you wanted to change one vehicle so that it builds something else from how it looks you'd have to track down a -lot- of references to specific vehicles already in use... Which is a pity as I was just sort of getting to like the idea. I found references to certain units in: init.sqs rts3-build-speacial-loadouts.sqs vrs.sqs So my initial concerns are right. You'd have to do an ungodly amount of reference chasing from script to script to do a large scale replacement. Oh well. I don't suppose anyone knows in particular the process you'd have to go through to replace things, which scripts hold which data. etc.

OFP doesn't need to compete with halflife 2 and doom3 for the simple reason is they're not even remotely similar. Some people just don't get that you must learn to sacrifice trite shallow details to achieve an overall versatility and expansiveness that OFP allows. I find nothing wrong with the original soldiers. It's people who obsess over the position of armpatches and small insignificant details which might railroad the development of ofp 2 into being another shitty ghost recon. I care about what's pertinent to what the game achieves... I care about decent physics. I care about decently modeled wounding system. I care about graphics too but only to an extent that they convey well enough what's going on. Yet still allow the game to operate on a broad scale without shelling out eight grand for a machine. Unfortunately as one mentioned... Occlusion in my opinion would be a bad idea. They have it in certain games and things literally pop up really close to you. No in a game where you should conceivably snipe people or fire weapons or simply see more than a kilometer away... occlusion would just be a bad idea.

Interesting I'll have to give it a look-see then. So I'm assuming the technologies that can be researched can't be altered. (such as say researching new buildable vehicles?) At any rate It sounds good. I'm definitely interested in this now. One critical thing that has probably been mentioned before, however I'll just mention it again. After a fair amount of time, there's a serious problem with game performance and corpses/hulks of destroyed vehicles littered about the battlefield. Especially when playing against the ai. I'm not sure if it's possible to write a general script that scans an area within a trigger and simply identifies things with damage =1 and deletes them at timed intervals. However idealistically that seems to be the most conceptually efficient way of doing it. On a subsidiary note. This may have been asked as well... since I haven't played that much of the game. There is or will be a method to limit the amount of units each side can build in total, maybe? The AI churns out vehicles at an astonishingly horrendous rate.

BIS loves us. I don't think there are many companies that do things for their fans the way they do. *sniffle* Honestly it's a hell of a nice thing for them to still be supporting the community when any other company could have just dropped it as it stands and started working on the next game.

BIS loves us. I don't think there are many companies that do things for their fans the way they do. *sniffle* Honestly it's a hell of a nice thing for them to still be supporting the community when any other company could have just dropped it as it stands and started working on the next game.

Fileplanet = teh satan Having a goddamned ID to download stuff? Notwithstanding the minimal queues for OFP stuff... it's still just a goddamned pain in the arse. Incidentally my gamespy ID is: Eatshitgamespy. This ruger mini 14 sure looks a lot like the ruger ac65f or whatever it's called. I know they're related but... hm.