Eviscerator

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 23 2003,03:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Gazelle (RAF)<span id='postcolor'> I would much rather an Army Air Corp version, they get used a hell of a lot more...in fact...does the RAF even have Gazelles?

http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m730.htm http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/chaparral.htm

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CuteQA @ April 22 2003,20:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i found a bug! when u shoot an unmanned mh-47 with AA, it still release flares. Also, same thing happen when it on the ground anyway, coooooooooooooooll addon!!!! Will BAS make this boat too  <span id='postcolor'> If its a Zodiac then yes...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (freddern @ April 22 2003,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What if you want AI to do all the stuff that can be done with the chopper? What scripts do I use then? Â <span id='postcolor'> You don't. You contact BIS and tell them to implement it in OFP2.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (EMAN @ April 22 2003,14:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I noticed the readme says the vehicle would be available under BAS Vehicle Spec Ops, but it is really placed in BAS Vehicles, this is causing my missions using the older M47E to get the addon not found error. Can someone help me out. I have one mission that I have many hours invested that cannot load due to this missing addon message. Thanks <S> SWAF<span id='postcolor'> Er, our changing the classes in the editor has no effect on missions, as the cpp classnames remain the same, so whatever your problem is the new classname is not the source...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (silent_64 @ April 21 2003,22:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cheaters "You won't get the addon for a couple of hours" I'll be sleep by then Ups... Didn't read it... DOH <span id='postcolor'> Its in there somewhere, it was 'hidden' in the text because the readme HAS to be read, as we dont want emails about issues weve already talked about, however, anyone who is completely lost, and promises to read the readme, click HERE.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chomps @ April 20 2003,15:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dark Knight @ April 20 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">hmmm, i wonder if they will have it as.. commander, driver and gunner? then again it would have to to be armoured... or has it.. hmmmm<span id='postcolor'> I remember seeing an addon-maker post about this. Â Apparently, he tried to make a three man crew for a chopper, one in each pilot seat and one door gunner by making on of the pilots the commander. Â He said it did not work very well and the chopper moved abnormally, so I doubt this is the crew chief's position. Â But then again, it is very possible that BAS found a work-around for this problem.<span id='postcolor'> That was actually us (BAS) that tried to put a commander in the helo, and as you said, the helo either didnt listen to the commander or just span around in circles...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpecOp9 @ April 19 2003,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have also concluded, this is definately a Vietnam War based videogame... Â If you see that flash intro, the soldier has a Modern Day Machine gun, and what looks to be a Radio on his helmet...<span id='postcolor'> Erm, the M60 is certainly not a modern day machine gun, being 53 years old, the type he is using hasnt been used in a long time (15 years or so), and the newer version (M60E3) was replaced by the M240 in both the USMC and US Army (with the G and B versions respectively), the only M60 still in service with american front line units is the M60E4, or Mk 43 Mod 0, in use by the SEAL's, albeit in a lesser supporting role, with the squad machine gun now being taken over by the Mk 46 Mod 0 (M249 modification), also the thing on his helmet is something to do with cleaning his gun, oil or something i believe... Also, Blackdog mentioned Join-In-Progress being a bad thing, i think it could be a very good thing, but only if they allow the option to turn it off, just like the way mission makers can decide the type of spawn, i think it could work well for helicoptered in reinforcements (something along the lines of what happened at LZ Xray)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpecOp9 @ April 19 2003,04:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have also concluded, this is definately a Vietnam War based videogame... Â If you see that flash intro, the soldier has a Modern Day Machine gun, and what looks to be a Radio on his helmet...<span id='postcolor'> Erm, the M60 is certainly not a modern day machine gun, being 53 years old, the type he is using hasnt been used in a long time (15 years or so), and the newer version (M60E3) was replaced by the M240 in both the USMC and US Army (with the G and B versions respectively), the only M60 still in service with american front line units is the M60E4, or Mk 43 Mod 0, in use by the SEAL's, albeit in a lesser supporting role, with the squad machine gun now being taken over by the Mk 46 Mod 0 (M249 modification), also the thing on his helmet is something to do with cleaning his gun, oil or something i believe... Also, Blackdog mentioned Join-In-Progress being a bad thing, i think it could be a very good thing, but only if they allow the option to turn it off, just like the way mission makers can decide the type of spawn, i think it could work well for helicoptered in reinforcements (something along the lines of what happened at LZ Xray)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LaPoi @ April 19 2003,19:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The pilots......... is that NVG's you finally got to work? <span id='postcolor'> No

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 19 2003,04:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Project UK forces is in collaboration with BAS right. So am i right in assuming that we are also going to get some nice high quality UK helicopters?<span id='postcolor'> Er, not really a collaboration, they are a seperate team of addon makers, BAS only host them and take part in beta testing for them, however when we both need the same/similar model we share, so they will be using a version of our MH-47E i believe...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cpt. FrostBite @ April 18 2003,17:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Vibes will complete/update some modern project from Maac & Marfy.<span id='postcolor'> I think you mean Vixer....Vibes is a modeller for WW2EC

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InQUisiToR @ April 17 2003,12:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All these weapons i made are for replacing the existing weapons in Flashpoint and in the BAS_Weaponpack.<span id='postcolor'> OK, now theres a problem, altering the BAS files and then releasing them without permission is not permitted, mainly for the reason that we like to keep the addons centralized at our site so it is easier to update, with several different versions this becomes harder, i would suggest just making the weapons and then either make them be put on BAS soldiers(which would require the bas d/r to work obviously), or just on normal BIS soldiers so that mission makers can assign them to whoever they want... Edit: About the ACOG sight, there are several reticle options: I believe InQUisiToR is using Earls from the SR-47/74 addon, however, as Earl has admitted he made a mistake, the target outline shouldnt be there, like this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (dkraver @ April 17 2003,01:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These two quotes are taken from the USASOC homepage and is about the 75th ranger regiment </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Army maintains the Regiment at a high level of readiness. Each battalion can deploy anywhere in the world with 18 hours notice. <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To maintain readiness, Rangers train constantly. Their training encompasses arctic, jungle, desert, and mountain operations, as well as amphibious instruction. The training philosophy of the 75th Ranger Regiment dictates the unit’s’ high state of readiness. The philosophy includes performance-oriented training emphasizing tough standards and a focus on realism and live-fire exercises, while concentrating on the basics and safety. Training at night, during adverse weather, or on difficult terrain multiplies the benefits of training events. Throughout training, Rangers are taught to expect the unexpected. <span id='postcolor'> So i would say they are also trained for artic/winter warfare. And a bit more than the normal infantry soldier. I couldnt find any picture of any rangers in artic uniform, but then again there really havent been any major or small artic conflicts , which is where most soldier pictures are taken . But i would think that your source inside the army could get the information you need. I agree about the delta's. And you are also right when you say that the 10th mountain division are specially trained for artic warfare. Anyways i hope that this would make you think about again, and decide that we all need some ranger's for artic warfare aswell.   <span id='postcolor'> Meh, ok so i didnt actually do a whole lot of research before posting, however, BAS has no plans to make arctic units at the minute, so there really wasnt much point anyway, but i would presume they would go for the dedicated arctic troops(10th mountain) over the all-rounder troops(rangers) in an arctic warfare situation.

No, there arent any from BAS, also there wouldnt really be much point, the deltas are generally CQB/Anti-terrorist/VIP Protection troops, also i'm not 100% sure but i think USASOC probably has specialized troops for the arctic than the Rangers like the 10th Mountain Division. Itw ould also need more than a retexture, it would need competely redoing as they would have to have full snow kit on, albeit a british soldier, a US soldier would wear something similar:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how many polygons?<span id='postcolor'> erm, he just said... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Faces: M16: 1204 M4/M203: 1837 M4/Scope: 1971 M4 SOPMOD: 2129 MP5 Aimpoint: 2031 <span id='postcolor'> Albeit faces are slightly different than polygons, but similar, just different naming/counting of the faces...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how many polygons?<span id='postcolor'> erm, he just said... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Faces: M16: 1204 M4/M203: 1837 M4/Scope: 1971 M4 SOPMOD: 2129 MP5 Aimpoint: 2031 <span id='postcolor'> Albeit faces are slightly different than polygons, but similar, just different naming/counting of the faces...

The problem with more modern conflicts is city battles, which means more detail, which means more polygons, which means less people are able to play due to the high system requirements, Vietnam or something similar suits the ofp engine, the major fixed wing role was close air support, helicopters were the main transport which ofp does really well, also most battles were platoon-company size which ofp also does well, im just wondering what the new engine will bring...

The problem with more modern conflicts is city battles, which means more detail, which means more polygons, which means less people are able to play due to the high system requirements, Vietnam or something similar suits the ofp engine, the major fixed wing role was close air support, helicopters were the main transport which ofp does really well, also most battles were platoon-company size which ofp also does well, im just wondering what the new engine will bring...

The M60 was only made in 1950, but i cant find any mention of it being used in Korea (Which ended in 1953), also as the soldier is wearing the M1 helmet and is in a South East Asia type setting, i think we can definitely say its going to be vietnam...

The M60 was only made in 1950, but i cant find any mention of it being used in Korea (Which ended in 1953), also as the soldier is wearing the M1 helmet and is in a South East Asia type setting, i think we can definitely say its going to be vietnam...

Yeah, being one of the makers of the nam pack, i knew that What i meant by engagement ranges wasnt the cpp term, but the actual physical distance they engage at, and actually hit things, which is about 50-100m ingame, it means there are less deaths, so longer battles, increasing it will just make the battles shorter and less fun...

Wouldnt it be better to lower the engagement ranges? So you then get the exciting battles as seen in the nam pack, instead of being picked off from someone you cant even see.

Codemasters is English i believe.

Codemasters is English i believe.