Cle Hicks

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Capitaine Haddock on 8:30 pm on Oct. 17, 2001 Cle Hicks... I know nothing about the code, I know nothing about script states, I know nothing about init phases, I know nothing about the game engine, I know nothing about programming, I know nothing about what BIS is doing now, I know nothing about what they are going to do next, and I know nothing about most things in life... But I know other games have this feature and OPF should have it. It may be something impossible to change now, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a big mistake not having it, you like it or not, mate (Unlike me, "u" can read very well, so you won't have any problems understanding this simple concept). Please, be a bit more positive and help us making this game a little bit better. That's all we are doing here. No hard  feelings mate, we are all trying to find a solution... that's all. Dawler suggestion is quite interesting. Maybe that's all we need. Dan "Haddock" <span id='postcolor'>Plz mate, note that I've *NO* "bad feelings". And asking for some feature which is *NOT* possible to implement the way the game is will *NOT* make it any better. So I am bein' positive, whereas those who cry "I want JIP or I won't play OFP anymore" don't help in any way. It doesn't matter a thing if other games have JIP: those games are *NOT* OFP, they aren't in any way as sophisticated as OFP is. Think about this: "Hey, I see some games let U pilot star-fighters and destroy enemies with lasers from orbit. I want this feature or I won't play OFP anymore..." From a logical point of view, the abovementioned stupidity is not far from what u r sayin... Did u catch the point? Stated that BIS (not me or someone else who understands a little of programming) declared JIP *NOT* feasable, I just wanted ppl to stop complaining and start proposing something alternative - as I did. Do u understand this? Thx Peace (Edited by Cle Hicks at 5:12 am on Oct. 20, 2001)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Capitaine Haddock on 12:11 pm on Oct. 16, 2001 I see your point about the game state changing all the time, but  the game sends ALL that information in real-time when you are actually playing...If it works in-game it should even be faster in a download screen. Oh. Another game that has this feature is Warbirds. There are far more players than in OFP, lots of planes, damaged units, damaged land objects... and you can join mid-game.<span id='postcolor'>Look man, did u take the time to read Suma's reply? When u start a game, there's an init phase u just CAN'T implement after game has started because U can't do many of the necessary assumptions about scripts states. It's not me who's sayin that, it's Suma: do u think u know the code better than he does? U say "if it works in-game it should even be faster in a download screen" - nope. This is ur opinion: it depends on how the engine has been projected & developed. Obviously, it can't be done with the current OFP engine (and don't ask for a complete rework of the engine: u would just get laughed in ur face...). C'mon: does anybody think BIS just wants to disappoints us not implementing an easy-to-do feature? C'mon guys, be smart! If they say it can't be done, why not trust them? Do u think they are just cruel? Or lazy? C'MON!!! It's in their interest to improve the game (and they're doing it: did u see how many patches, add-ons, tools they've released FOR FREE?): if this feature can't be added, there's no point in just crying and screaming like babies who want some more toys to play whith! Didn't play that WB game, but I've seen it and personally I'm sure it has'n even a portion of OFP complexity (HUGE *interactive* maps, LOTS of *script-commanded* troops & vehicles, etc.): It's just a FlSim... It's a little bit different, don't u think? (Edited by Cle Hicks at 4:11 pm on Oct. 17, 2001)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in quite old games like Quake 2 there was the option to download a whole map from the server if you didn’t have it. I presume the information about the current state of the mission in flashpoint is quite big, but it can’t be much bigger than the download required for a whole quake map<span id='postcolor'>It seems to me u r forgetting a little detail: the state of an in-progress game is *not* static like a map. Look: ppl are playing when u r downloading those data, and are *changing* them. Virtually, u could even get stuck in an infinite d/l because what u get from server is changing continuosly and u need to re-download it all the time... (not likely to happen, but u got the point huh?) I just think average d/l time would be the same u spend now waiting for already-started games to finish. Only difference: programmers spent a lot of time implementing a feature that cannot keep what it promises: "let u play on the fly". C'mon guys: look at those huge, beautiful, detailed maps OFP lets u play in. They're what elevates OFP over other FPS (that's the good) and at the same time they prevent u from joining a game in progress (and that's the bad). Everithing comes at a cost. Personally, I don't think OFP is goin to "die" because of this feature lacking. Simply, OFP forces u to schedule ur games instead of just joining in in ur "spare time"... Try to see the situation this way: OFP is more tactical than other games even in deciding when to play and whith whom... I love this game, and if u love it too, there'll be no "10 mins wait" that stops u from playin it. By the way, infos transmitted by servers to clients like GameSpy or All-Seeing Eye should definitely be improved - plz Suma, u sure can do this: add those info - name of map currently playing (possibly with option to see its briefing and the map itself, even if not animated) - timeleft (in maps with fixed duration) - time from start (in all maps which arent time-based) - number of objectives reached/number of total objectives (just to have an idea of what's goin' on) I think this could be easily made available in a forthcoming patch, am I right?