Baphomet

Your statements about .Net in your own words from your own personal perspective are valid in their own right. I can't argue with that, or with the above statement. However. It's ironic that the vast majority of PC gaming software runs primarily on windows. Which sucks... (I wish there was a more stripped down gaming friendly OS. Although I suspect that'll never happen. The F-ing shitbox will see to that) and I have successfully thus far dodged the .Net bullet quite well. I've missed out on a few programs that could have been made in C++ or even VB... which annoys me, since they're relatively insignificant end user utilities. They could have been written easily in C with little or no detrement with exception for the effort required to make it. And yes. I mean end user efficiency on MY end. Since it occurs to me that .Net, once installed sort of integrates itself into your OS like some kind of binary "Cymothoa exigua". You just can't seem to just run it when you want to run some .net program. It more or less always seems to run some stupid little thing after it's installed, in the background.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that comment. I -just- asked myself that same question and decided to peruse some of the scripts. The instance in which I notice this happening is when I do an ambush on an enemy base. So I look up the script that creates an enemy base, and I find some compelling evidence to support your theory. Enemybase.sqs. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">;create enemy base ~0.1 leadertent = "CampEmpty" camcreate [(getpos mis_obj select 0), (getpos mis_obj select 1), 1] ~0.1 "OfficerG" createunit [leadertent,lead_group,"enemyboss=this",1] ~0.1 "SoldierGB" createunit [leadertent,lead_group,"bas1=this",0.4] ~0.1 "SoldierGB" createunit [leadertent,lead_group,"bas2=this",0.4] ~0.1 "SoldierGB" createunit [leadertent,lead_group,"bas3=this",0.4] ~0.1 "SoldierGB" createunit [leadertent,lead_group,"bas4=this",0.4] ~0.1 MG1 = "M2StaticMG" createvehicle [(getpos mis_obj select 0)+40, (getpos mis_obj select 1)] ~0.1 MG2 = "M2StaticMG" createvehicle [(getpos mis_obj select 0)-40, (getpos mis_obj select 1)] ~0.1 MG3 = "M2StaticMG" createvehicle [(getpos mis_obj select 0), (getpos mis_obj select 1)+40] ~0.1 MG4 = "M2StaticMG" createvehicle [(getpos mis_obj select 0), (getpos mis_obj select 1)-40] ~0.1 bas1 moveingunner MG1 ~0.1 bas2 moveingunner MG2 ~0.1 bas3 moveingunner MG3 ~0.1 bas4 moveingunner MG4 exit Hm. Looks like the exact same units I noticed this problem with have no killed eventhandlers. So. Now my only question is: How do I implement? I took a look at the line of code to create the officer, specifically the last number before the closing brackets: "OfficerG" createunit [leadertent,lead_group,"enemyboss=this", 1 ] Does this determine skill level? If so. Then could I cut/paste the addeventhandler command into the spawn command with a slight modification? "OfficerG" createunit [leadertent,lead_group,"enemyboss=this; this addeventhandler [{killed} , {_this exec {eventhan\cleanup.sqs}}]",1,"PRIVATE"] I'm not sure if that's proper syntax for it to work. It looks right to me though.

I'm sorry to pick on you guys so much. Really. You guys deserve some respite after working on this stuff so much, but I have another question. In the eventhandler folder there are some scripts that handle the removal of dead bodies. Now. I kind of don't want my ai guys and the ai enemies to be cleaned up so quickly on the battlefield. There are times when I and my AI squadmates really needed to salvage off of our fallen enemies. I set the delay for the deletevehicle _unit command to execute after ~120 units of time has passed on cleanup.sqs and a few others. Now. I think this has caused a problem since some units weren't being deleted at all. I would assume 120 would be roughly around two minutes. Right? Or am I way off. These units were persisting for much longer than 120 seconds. Does fiddling with the delay before the bodies are deleted screw things up somehow?

Those soldier models are like whoa, holy crap high detail for a game that basically simulates huge turn based battles. But it's turn based, so eh. It looks nice at least. I'm hoping as the visuals get better, we can actually see individual units taking fire instead of just seeing the little stat bar showing how many of how many units have been killed now. Because it'd be really silly to see such a nicely detailed soldier running around representing a squad of like five guys and standing in the line of fire and bullets flying through him/ etc. Still. I'll be definitely looking out for this one.

I fall under that category I guess. The more minimalist for gaming. The better in my opinion. I'm also one of those people who found the idea of windows XP absolutely abhorent. The only thing I can say to XP's credit is it's much more stable. I can't help but think of all the new useless junk that ends up increasing the system requirements for new operating systems that I don't need that could have gone towards running my existing applications better on newer hardware. It just seems like there's something wrong with that to me. I'm also one of these people that: -Hates Valve's Steam because it forces you to run software that has -nothing- to do with their game, taking up valuable system resources. -And hates M$ .net, and Sun's java.... etc because it's virtual machine, to hell with ease of use in content creation. I want end user efficiency.

Ok. Basically let me clarify. This problem is determined by the following key factors. The recoil value itself, and the ai rate of fire, and air ROF distance values. The actual cyclic rate of the weapon may have an effect on how the ai uses it, however I'm not sure. the average ai distance value seems to be like 500. the typical ai ROF value for this corresponding distance value is like 0.1 From my experience if you jack the units skill up. They fire faster. Don't ask me why. They don't time their shots better. They just get more trigger happy. So when the ai ROF value is like 0.1 and their skill is maxxed out. (ie: 1, or full right on the skill bar in the editor). They fire like mad and the recoil carries the bullets up into the air, hitting nothing. 0.1 is an awfully low value (higher rate of fire) for controllable shooting at higher skill levels. Try fiddling with them for the best results. I had to make slight adjustments to my weapons so they'd perform normally at the highest skill level possible. At least. That was my comprimise. ANY recoil... well almost. Can cause this "shoot way over the target" problem, if the ai ROF and the AI ROF distance values aren't tweaked.

What island are those screenshots taken on?

Ok. So I want to use ODOL explorer to modify existing BIS models for my own personal use. Yeah. I know that's a no no, however I really just want to modify the stock addons, since really they're on par with the detail level I need for huge missions. 300kb p3d files per weapon model in ODOL format is just a bit overbudget for what I'm doing. What errors can I expect to have to fix when decompiling an ODOL model from the OFP DATA.pbo? I'd probably use some of the older CWC retextures and edit those, but nobody's really released a "How to add a res compatible muzzle flash for a CWC addon: For complete dummies" tutorial. The size of the AK74/47/SU seemed rather smallish to me. I would like to rescale them to be a bit bigger. Perhaps fiddle around with texturing. Thing is. I don't have the time to devote to making addons like many of you here. I want something I can immediately use... that doesn't look like a flaming heap of shit. I can tell you. Anything I make on my own, would be just that.

Yeah I figured. Reason (a) was good enough to discourage me from bothering. Meh... Well I'm not trying to take anything, there's nothing in the community in that respect I really want that I can't/haven't already modified for my own use. Anyhow. I think that ODOL models are the way to go. I wish more addonmakers would ODOL their models since it's supposed to optimize them for better performance. I didn't see any BIS mlod weapon models however. Only the man, and vehicles. I don't want to make addons, I haven't the time. Too busy and it's just one of those things I'm not really good at. I just want something that will improve my personal OFP experience. Really, it's the AK and the VZ.58 I have a problem with. They're too small it seems. It looks like the soldier is carrying a toy gun. I just want them bigger. Â I'd pay someone to make addons that I want, I mean really. It's too much hassle for me to do it on my own. I'm changing jobs soon, my new job will pay much more, only I'll be out of town a lot. I know a lot of guys who like to do 3d modeling, perhaps I can convince them with a monetary incentive when I get some extra cash. I could compensate them to learn all the ins and outs of Oxygen while I'm out working, and possibly have a working model that I just need to write a cpp for when I get back.

The values don't matter so much as other key things, such as AI rate of fire distance. I lost my really good M60 recoil I had made a while back on one of my backup cds with a previous version of FDF. However it's something like this: riflefull[]={0.055,0.0200,0.0300,0.06000,0,0}; Not so much FDF with the more extreme climb it has, which is fine for multiplay with actual people, but good for ai to simulate an bouncing erratic recoil instead of a consistent one. However, this recoil only works if the ai rate of fire distance is tweaked as well. Otherwise, bullets will still fly above heads. I found I had to tweak recoil values for each individual gun because the PK and the M60 have fire rate discrepancies. Because the DMA mission basically gives your guys totally buffed out stats (ie: skill=1), that means they're going to fire faster (even on full auto!?!? Â ). So I would adjust your ai rate of fire distance for your guns to work best at the highest skill level. It make make low skill level guys look retarded in comparison, but that's the only real solution I've figured. By the way. Is there any more detailed documentation on what all the objects in the editor do? such as all the Rzones? Dzones? They've something to do with missions in this text file, however what's the direct correlation? Some others are pretty self explanatory. However the web of SAD game logics kind of confuses me. The cities, ok. the ambush ones, Helo down game logics... they're ok.

I didn't quite like the default BIS recoils, I liked the FDF ones, however I tweaked them to my liking. I recall having to undergo the exact same process of making a realistic/functional recoil for my MG soldiers because they would fire too high. Now I have a fairly good balance between proficiency and realism that I enjoy in my missions. They're not sniper gods, yet at the same time. They can mow down troops a lot faster than regular infantry can. It's more interesting to have an actual firefight instead of one consisting of like five shots. Anyhow. I was going to ask something about the Dynamic war mission. Will unlocking enemy vehicles in vehiclesbattle.sqs screw anything up? I want to be able to command crippled enemy and friendly tanks.

The monetary cost doesn't matter. It's pretty evident that microsoft is trying to shift the gaming aspect of the PC over to their fucking shitbox. Playing games that would normally be played on the pc with a console is tantamount to a substandard experience. It's disgusting. I always said I was a few pcs away from not really bearing much interest in buying them anymore because of shit like this. It may be happening sooner than I thought. I heard that the system requirements for Vista were going to ridiculously high, because of some vector based UI... Is that a rumor or what? I can't imagine that will have any positive impact on the gaming side of things.

Well. I've finally had some time tonight to sit down and have a nice game of Dynamic War SP. Some of the best singleplay experiences I've ever had in OFP have been had this evening. The battles. Especially in free mission. I can't begin. I wouldn't know where to start. I ported very quickly over to Kodiak island, and I charted my first sortie, a nighttime insertion onto a hill in a large clearing on the northwestern part of the island. Me and my men held out and set up camp. The ability to make fortifications and supply crates was just a wicked idea. I didn't even know about that. It saved my skin more than a few times. The battle went quickly from a routine skirmish to outright chaos in short order. I could really appreciate the disorder of battle as things were happening all around. It was hard to determine friend from foe. Shells flying overhead, vehicles knocked over from explosive rounds, all whilst attempting to plug the holes in my defences from advancing threats from afar and near ensured it didn't get boring. The extraction from the hill was probably one of the most intense I've ever had in OFP. I made it back with three guys. You start to appreciate your AI squadmates when you know you have to pay a significant cost to have them replaced. What's more. A battle unfolded around me, not for me. Normally when I play OFP I feel like everything's happening for my benefit. This time I was nothing more than a pawn in a much larger conflict. I was no longer the focal point. Earning assets and support from taking free missions is an excellent idea. I'd like to see other creative gameplay innovations with plug in script type additions. It certainly has potential, and I think with community support. It could only get better.

What I'd like to see from this. Is some kind of open repository for modular script type thingies that you could add with a small to intermediate amount of effort into a DM mission template. It might be a good way of increasing the replay value of the missions.

Those are MLOD then? If so, that would be one problem solved. However. Then there's the issue of making them res compatible. Which I don't quite know how to do. Any tips?

I'll agree with you there. And to their credit. I can use some of BAS' the older-yet-innovative for the time addons now in smaller scale missions when I feel like comprimising. Same with the RNI pack by earl and suchey. When I look back on it. They're not as bad as I thought. However for the hardware I had. They simply didn't fit my budget, performance wise. My ambition for bigger missions tends to grow beyond the capabilities of my hardware. Despite how new my pcs get. So I have to lower my sights a bit and use stock units. It almost always ends up that way. So I focus on gameplay enhancements versus appearance. The only exception to that is object density on islands. Such as tonal or any other island that has dense vegetation, or intricately detailed terrain geometry. However this takes precedence for me over unit detail. They did release a tonal lite, which they didn't have to. It was considerate. I just really wished at the time they had released a Blackhawk-lite for that addon as well. I disagree with this. I simply won't buy a new pc for an addon. That just seems a bit off the wall to me. I work hard for my money and an addon just doesn't cut it as far as justification for new hardware. People who can. I don't want to sound like an asshole, must have more money than braincells. There are absolutely no limits to how detailed a free end user addon can get. And as I've mentioned in the past. For some reason, the editing community has maybe consciously or unconsciously kept the OFP within a certain performance envelope which never really facilitated increased mission size without enduring the same lag you would with a slower computer and stock units. So... really. My only option for super huge giant missions, with better performance than what I'd get with my older pcs, is to simply use older units.

Not the missions I play at least. I don't know about you. I notice a difference. Then again I pay careful attention for it. I recall a survey on OFP.info that indicated the majority of people just sort of tinker around with most addons in the editor, less actually use them. So go figure. At any rate. You can't tell me these newer addons can even touch the performance increase you get when using stock units on huge missions. That's absurd.

Unlike your apparent dislike for spelling.

I rather liked retextures, or slightly improved stock units. Call me crazy. They're much better for use in large missions. However. You don't gain widespread acclaim for stuff like that. Even I'll admit, to an extent. That kind of mediocrity doesn't incite praise from anyone, so there's no real incentive for many to do that. It still does have it's merits however. Furthermore. In the case of OFP. Quantity wins over quality to me. Stock OFP units work well enough for what I use this game for. (ie: not a digital picture gallery, but a large scale battlefield simulator). My biggest complaint is the fact that there aren't enough units close to "Stock BIS unit" quality out there for more variety. It's all nice and well to use these new high detail soldiers that are worth like three BIS helicopters apiece, detail-wise in a mission, however I feel I miss out on better performance in larger missions when I do. I didn't get a better computer to have nicer visuals in OFP. There are plenty of games out there that look much better than OFP. I wanted to improve my gameplay experience through larger missions, increased capacity to handle gameplay improving scripts. That was and It still is. What keeps me playing it. Thank goodness for FDF. That's all I can say. And since OFP kind of lacks on smaller scale combat compared to newer games. The huge missions are all I really play now. I will give credit to the DMA team for their resistance troops. They've amazed me with a release that appears both high quality and yet weighs in closer to BIS stock units in performance drain. Despite their higher detail textures... (which can be "fixed"). Bas also made some good units that way too. The OPFOR pack is a terrific example. It was a stock BRDM with a gun on it. I mean holy shit. The americans had the willys/mg and the m113 and they had bugger all. The SCUD was also a great addition for the same reason. Using what was already available and improving the way it was used. Less the way it was to be visually appreciated. I also enjoyed the MH-47. It had loads of features that improved gameplay without the mind blowing and CPU decimating detail of their blackhawk pack. All in all. They released some good stuff, but at the same time. I think they got just a bit too serious about this whole addon business. OFP is supposed to be fun. Not a popularity contest.

Just noticed a problem with the Dynamic SP mission for the east side. I attempted to take a second regular mission (not the free one) and I was assigned by the C.O to talk to the pilot to request transport. Then absolutely nothing happened. So the game effectively had hung and there was nothing I could do. Is this a common occurrence? Has it been mentioned before? I thought I'd mention it anyhow. It's fun despite that annoying bug however.

You basically outlined my main point right there, I guess successive revisions of the SB live series of cards have eliminated that annoying CPU requirement that the SB live had. I'm not very tech savvy as far as newer sound cards go, however I haven't heard anything more about them requiring more or less from the main CPU. So I suppose that's good to hear. You know how many post-OFP FPS games managed not to have laggy full auto sounds during processor intensive periods? (FARCRY, RVS, IGI:2, etc etc etc) They used looping audio. They synced the cyclic rate to the sound. Then when the person stops shooting. The looped sound stops and then plays a trailing off sound. It's much more efficient than replaying the entire sound over and over and over again, for every shot fired. OFP can do this to an extent, however poorly. It's the soundcontinuous variable. The main differences are: 1: the sound doesn't stop playing after you take your hand off the trigger/mousebutton, it plays through the duration. Also, if you loop just the firing part to sync with the cyclic rate of the weapon, you lose any supersonic trail-off noise. So. Here's hoping they use something like this for Game 2. What's more. Weapons, and vehicles, etc. Should also SOUND diffrently at different ranges. Having ordinance/firearm discharges sound they way they do in real life at longer distances would in my opinion bring far more to the table in terms of ambience and immersiveness than any visuals could. To me, sound is more important that hi-fi visuals.

I actually like that. Because it really forces snipers to time and aim their shots with considerable skill. Instead of the aim automatically respotting. It's left roughly where the recoil peaked. Which means you have to respot your aim, the most quick way of doing this is by going out of scope view and then acquiring your target, then looking through your scope again. I can tell you, I have to do this a lot when I'm picking off gophers at a considerable distance using a higher magnification. (some of them like to move quickly) There's to me. Nothing more unrealistic or annoyingly stupid than having someone from a distance just start spamming the fire button while scoped not even having to acquire a target again. Sniping with this "Bug" makes the game more fun IMHO. ... Anyhow. I was going to post something about the resistance units. I poked around the pbo file unpacked and noticed their p3d filesize is around 300-something kb. That's not really bad for a modern addon. How does the actual polycount compare to the stock BIS units? Favorably? It seems that way. Favorably as in lower, that is. Aside from some of the texture's resolution being 512 and up, that's not really bad. It's in my opinion, an oddity in a sea of addons that are usually far too detailed for what they really ought to be.

And how. I don't think a lot of people realize to what extent this affects accuracy.

Wicked. It was an excellent toy to play with this weekend. When I have more time I'm going to try customizing some missions.

Hardware audio = suck. Game2 should include a sophisticated software sound engine. If it were true that audio hardware takes the load off of the CPU I would agree with it, however what with EAX consuming a solid 10% more CPU time than without it. I would say making a broadly compatible sound engine with enhanced effects for sounds such as doppler shift (I know we have that), and other similar effects for sounds heard at a distance, etc. I think we'd be just as well off as far as CPU load goes.