Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

Commander-598

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    376

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by Commander-598

  1. Posted

    As told by InQUisiToR i unpacked the res\dta\hwtl\data3d.pbo and the INQ_WeaponPack.pbo and replaced every weapon from the data3d.pbo with one from the hd pack, renaming them accordingly. Then i repacked the data3d.pbo and put it into a modfolder (like hdweapons\dta\hwtl\data3d.pbo). This left me with the weapons being used in the game by the normal soldiers but without textures. I mailed InQUisiToR and he told me to use the INQ_WeaponPack.pbo too (duh). So i put that into hdweapons\addons\INQ_WeaponPack.pbo and it worked. But as it seems the textures are there but not the gunsights (i get standard gunsights for the new weapons). So maybe i did something wrong or you have to edit the config.cpp to get everything from the new weapons into the original game...

    Sights have their own models, found in Inquisitor's pack under Optics.

    Filenames are like inq_optika_ak47.p3d

    In the data pbo:

    optika_m16

    optika_m60_mg

    optika_sniperw (M21)

    optika_pk

    optika_ak47

    optika_snipere (Dragunov)

    Just do it like you did the weapons.

  2. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]I used to wonder about Rumsfeld's rather unintelligent comment about France and Germany being irrelevant.

    Militarily speaking, they are.

  3. Posted

    Where do the US take the authority from to DEMAND that other countries do something that helps the US? What happened to national sovereignty? A nation is sovereign, it can do as it pleases. Bombing it because it is not doing what you want is...barbaric.

    The best part is that the US will not listen to ANYONE, including the UN! Some day the rest of the world, including her allies, will stop listening to the US, I wonder what will happen then. I just hope this doesn't happen, that the current administration and indeed the current model of US foreign policy is voted off ASAP.

    Sometimes I wonder how US citizens can continue to support their government which keeps on spitting on the ideals their nation was built on. Or are there no ideals, was this nation founded only to save paying taxes to someone that told you what to do? rock.gif I would really like to listen to a coherent argument to this from an American.

    Quote[/b] ]

    Ex-RoNiN-

    Quote[/b] ]"Where do the US take the authority from to DEMAND that other countries do something that helps the US? What happened to national sovereignty? A nation is sovereign, it can do as it pleases. Bombing it because it is not doing what you want is...barbaric."

    An American might argue that thats just not what happens. The US requests that a country stops doing something (such as aiding international terrorists) if the country does nothing to change its policies then it may be seen as a threat to US national security and the US acts accordingly (in line with its own national sovereignty)

    In fact you appear to either logically contradict yourself or answer your own question:

    "Where do the US take the authority from to DEMAND that other countries do something that helps the US?"

    "A nation is sovereign, it can do as it pleases."

    Might makes right. Its not politically correct or palatable to the 'international community' but at the same time it remains a hard truth. An American might argue that if the UN is not willing to act on its supposed principles then someone else has to.

    If fact the article that Denoir posted suggests that the US may agitate and provoke but not physically invade or attack. There are many means to dispense with an undesirable regime.

    Quote[/b] ] "The best part is that the US will not listen to ANYONE, including the UN"

    Who listens to the UN and why should they? It may not have escaped your attention that the legitimacy and raison d'etre of the UN itself has come into question recently and i happen to think that there are indeed major issues that need addressing lest they undermine the UN as a whole. Dictators and Authoritarians should be institutionally hounded by the UN and punished for their abuses of the UNs own charter but instead the UN does nothing to abusers and so gives them de facto backing.

    Quote[/b] ] "Some day the rest of the world, including her allies, will stop listening to the US"

    As long as the US is a superpower dont be holding your breath. The US is power and few can ignore power for long.

    Quote[/b] ]

    "Sometimes I wonder how US citizens can continue to support their government which keeps on spitting on the ideals their nation was built on. Or are there no ideals, was this nation founded only to save paying taxes to someone that told you what to do?"

    An American might say 'Sometimes i wonder how EU citizens can continue to support their government which keep spitting on the ideals that our country fought to preserve for them. Or are there no ideals, was the EU founded only to harmonise taxes and criticise America?'

    A very coherent argument. biggrin_o.gif

  6. Posted

    Quote[/b] ]At any rate, it's still not full auto however you would NEVER fire a sniper rifle on full auto, unless it's some kind of very small-caliber rifle (like a Ruger 10/22 with full-auto conversion). I've fired .308 caliber weapons and they have a pretty decent kick. On full auto, even with the best muzzle brake you'd end up with most of your rounds going way off target unless it used some kind of fancy delayed recoil burst system. But I have not heard of any such system in .308 caliber (NATO 7.62mm).

    Then I guess you would agree with my suggestion. About the M14.

    Also, may i suggest removing the handguns from the regular soldeirs. More than half the time, the whole squad gets killed because they all switched weapons at the first sign of contact.

  9. Posted

    Tried and Complaints:

    The M24 and M14 are both underpowered.

    The M14 either shouldn't have a full auto mode(Not a whole lot did) or increase the recoil/dispersion.

    That heavy recoil on the M24 should be toned down a little.

    *Ahem*

    This really needs adressing.

    Quote[/b] ]2. M4 seems to have amazingly little recoil, was this on purpose?

    The M16/M4 weapons aren't known for having much recoil.

  13. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Have civvilian ones with a mouse button click you van 'populate' with air traffic frequencies, light aircraft flying around (maybe a tourist company, make an interesting 'a plane has been hijacked' mission maybe) and also a few people. Also have buttons to populate towns with civvies automatically, without us having to put in mind boggling amounts of waypoints etc.

    <span id='postcolor'>

    Quite.

  15. Posted

    I do recall that there was a patrol boat(Not a PBR) that was made to use two flamethrowers and it would torch the river banks as it went by to discourage ambushes.

    I also recall that the Marines used a flamethrower tank.

    And lets not forget the massive use of napalm.

  19. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Andrew B @ 15 May 2003,20:24)</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">an M-16 will take out a target the same as a COM hit with an AK-47. However, a hit slightly off to the side with an M-16 will deliver a downed enemy, whereas the same off center hit with an AK-47 <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">an M-16 will take out a target the same as a COM hit with an AK-47. However, a hit slightly off to the side with an M-16 will deliver a downed enemy, whereas the same off center hit with an AK-47 <span id='postcolor'>

    WRONG.

    If an M16 would even hit you dead in the stomach, you would probably still be shooting although bleeding through a small hole.

    An Ak-47 uses a larger round(Although a 7.62x39mm isn't much better than a 5.56N round).

    What i'm saying: An M16 shouldn't be dropping targets unless it's making head shots. And I do recall having to sometimes hit Ruskies twice with the default M16 in the chest. It completely matched the Statements made by the Marine who is known on the Russian Front forums as Devildog.

    Note: These ideas are drawn from my own personal experiences and remarks from a guy in Marine Force Recon.

  21. Posted

    I think there should be actual weather effects and I mean something other than just some rain and random lightning.

    Maybe waves on the ocean(Severity depends on the storm, and I do mean the big rolling waves).I'd also like to be able to set the editor to December and possibly see snow and different textures for everything.(Provided the coordinates are allow snow to appear at all, and I do know that you can set coordinates in the CPP)

    Come to think of it, weather(specifically wind) should affect aircraft, boats/ships(See the above wave idea), and weapons(Like bullets and missiles).

    Thoughts?

  23. Posted

    I have a few gripes about the OICW.

    1. Weather- Electronics have a nasty habit of not agreeing with water.

    2. Weight/Size- Its too heavy, and bulky. And when you remove all the little electronic gadgets and the 20mm cannon, you have a 5.56mm pistol.

    3. EMP- Again with the electronics. On the modern battlefield, we do employ equipment to knock out electronics, and so does any enemy that would require a major war with thousands of casualties attached.

    4. Power- Just like any other portable electronic device, it needs recharging, and I highly doubt that you'll find a power outlet in a war torn countryside. Solar energy? It would work, but the cost is a little to much. Batterys? Just another addition to what the supply lines already have to get to our troops.

    5. Cost- Correct me if i'm wrong, But I thought we were trying to go for the least expensive weapon.

    Overall- I thought we(U.S.) were going for a lightweight and fairly cheap weapon. After all, thats the prime reason we dropped the M14 isn't it?

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">emp(a little bit fiction, but possible)<span id='postcolor'>

    No its not fiction. Not only is it caused by a nuclear warhead going off, we now have bombs made especially for delivering an EMP to enemy electronics.

  25. Posted

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (andersgrim @ 02 May 2003,10:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the have solved the LAW pretty good. Only thing to point the finger at here would be the size of the LAW when it is on his back. Actually its about half of the lenght as it is ingame now. But, as said, I think the LAW is good enough as it is.<span id='postcolor'>

    The LAW you see ingame is a victim of no weapon anims. Because you can't animate it, it is shown as "ready to fire".

    You do have to "ready it" sort of.

×