Eviscerator

We have plans set in place on what our projects are for the next 3 or 4 months, setting up a whole new team for east men/vehicles would be a huge logistical task, just organising it would be hell, and the people you mentioned probably have their own plans for the forseeable future [Edit: just seen youve put bas addon studio, that would be BASAS ]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Feb. 18 2003,237)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Feb. 18 2003,09<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's one beef I have with the NAM2 pack where they ripped the sites from America's Army it seemed (or tried to imitate those sites). Â Â <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> erm, the nam pack uses the bis iron sights on the M16A1....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jahve @ Feb. 18 2003,21:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It it just me or is it mandatory for every BAS-thread to get over 200 posts? Â <span id='postcolor'> was that really neccessary?

To anyone wanting some opposition to the desert deltas/rangers i just saw a unit that i didnt actually realise i had installed that woul fit quite well, there are also a lot of other units that would fit in as OPFOR in the pack, a picture of UCE's Middle East units: You'll need all the below zips to get these http://koti.mbnet.fi/vosku/addonit/UCEunits.zip http://flashpoint.xaos.ru/jjsoini/uce_eastweapons1_25.zip http://koti.mbnet.fi/vosku/addonit/VNGroza.zip

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cheeky monkey @ Feb. 16 2003,15:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also what would you think makes a Bullpup more inaccurate, look at the SA80, its unreliable, but its very accurate. Also look at the WA2000 sniper rifle, its one of the most accurate rifles around.<span id='postcolor'> The L85A2 is a very reliable rifle when cleaned properly, the problem was when switching from the A1 to A2 they were cleaning it wrongly, much the same as with early M16's they were cleaned wrongly or not cleaned at all which led to fouling which caused the notorious stoppages, but when the L85A2 is cleaned properly it is very reliable, official figures put it at one stoppage per 25,200 rounds

heh all this for using the wrong word, which is similar...anyhoo, what i was trying to point out in the first place is that if using a 3.5x28 Elcan is common then moving up to a 4x32 ACOG isnt too much of a leap, especially for SF. But there is always the 'old' M249 sans optics if you fancy something a bit different And i wasnt the only one! </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, after looking a bit more carefully then I think I agree with you about that being an aimpoint. BUT the C9A1 does use an Elcan C79 scope, no doubt at all: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-c9a1.htm And, take a look at the last pic I posted. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 18 2003,01:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Feb. 18 2003,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Various FN Minimi/Mag 58 Variants using magnification scopes: <span id='postcolor'> Hehe, those are not magnificating scopes. All the scopes on the pictures are actually Eclan C79 sights. They are telescopic but not magnification scopes in the common meaning (Like scopes on sniper rifles). On the contrary they are inwardly focal-reflecting with the primary function of enlarging the FOV. It's use is not for shooting things at large distances, but covering a large FOV. Another functionis that it improves livion in low light environments. Technically it is does have a x3.4 magnification but that's not its function. It is not a scope, but a sight. <span id='postcolor'> ....now you're just being pedantic The fact it is Telescopic makes it a scope..., but either way, what i meant was that they are sights/scopes with a 3.5x magnification on FN Minimi/Mag 58 Variants.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JJPHAT @ Feb. 18 2003,01:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">how do i put the tabs on soldiers so they are from diff units....like 101st, 10th, 82nd<span id='postcolor'> As always, this information was provided in the readme (more specifically the code snippets) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ARM PATCH TEXTURES ****************************************************************************************** **************************** You can select a Patch to put on the units arm, by pasting this code into the INIT field : NOTE: The texture can be changed in mission NOTE: Using the default "Soldier" and "DES Soldier", you can simulate a variety of Ranger Divisions. USA this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_derad\usa_vlajka.pac"] [end code] OR different Ranger Divisions: [code] this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\82nd.paa"] [end code] Available Ranger Patches are : this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\82nd.paa"] this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\101st.paa"] this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\10thMt.paa"] this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\75thRanger.paa"] And Subdued patches: this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\82ndsub.paa"] this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\101stsub.paa"] this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\10thMtsub.paa"] this setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\75thRangersub.paa"] OR Your Country (any flag built into the game): [code] this setObjectTexture [0,"\flags\yourcountry.jpg"] [end code] OR Place any JPG in you mission folder, (has to be sized to regular OFP sizes, such as 16, 32, 64, 128, 256): [code] this setObjectTexture [0,"YourLogo.jpg"] [end code] SQUAD PATCHES To quickly and easily change the arm patch of an entire squad, past this line in the INIT field of squad leader: [code] {_x setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_weap\unitpatch\10thMt.paa"]} forEach units this [end code] or (for use outside init field, requires Group name): [code] {_x setObjectTexture [0,"\BAS_derad\usa_vlajka.pac"]} forEach units Grpname [end code] ****************************************************************************************** ****************************<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Feb. 18 2003,00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Erm... Can anyone help me out here by answering the following question (sorry, stupid question again)? Wich rifle does the 10th Mount., 82nd Airb. and 101st AA currently use? I think it's the M4 for all three but I'm not sure.<span id='postcolor'> They do all use the M4A1

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 18 2003,00:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (dkraver @ Feb. 17 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also i would say that a optical sight like the elcan(not scopes there's a diffence) would improve the aim since the light MG's like the MG3 and the FN Mag arent made to be fired with the trigger pressed until you have to load a new belt unless they are installed in a tripod.<span id='postcolor'> Recoil is the least reason why you can't fire long salvos. The barrel gets heated quickly. As a rule of thumb we had (for the MAG) to fire in bursts the length as it takes you to say "one beer" (in Swedish of course ). This is something that would be nice to get implemented in OFP machineguns - barrel heating. There is no way in hell you can fire off 200 rounds continuously IRL. You would melt the barrel. It should not be too hard to do through some scripting... Now as for the scopes: This is not a scope, it's a red-dot sight as far as I can see. And that is not surprising, without magnification optics function just as good as iron sights. It's magnification that screws it up if you have considerable recoil. I'm still very sceptical about using a scope on a Minimi. I have fired that gun many times and I can't comperhend how a manifying scope could possibly work. I could of course be wrong, but I simply don't see how it is possible. Edit: Unless it is tripod-mounted <span id='postcolor'> Various FN Minimi/Mag 58 Variants using magnification scopes:

As far as i know most special forces have completely replaced their M249 PIP and PARA's with M249 SPW and MK 46 Mod 0's (Mk 46 is navy), but Damocles (our teams co-producer and a big advisor to the project) would be able to give a more definate answer.

got any pics?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (.argus. @ Feb. 17 2003,22:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One little thing I a bit odd, the M249 SPW has an ACOG, but the the M240 and M249 does not!? I mean, the latter two both have almost twice the effective range of the SPW, so why no ACOG? Great addon btw.<span id='postcolor'> The M249 SPW is a exclusively a special ops weapon, who have lots of access to the ACOG and many other sights, although the rangers would probably normally mount reflex scopes (as it is their standard issue scope), the M240 probably has too much recoil when not on a tripod for a sight to be effective, the other M249 is an old PIP version that we put in for people wanting to make older era missions (i wont point out the obvious)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Feb. 17 2003,21:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SGTKOPP @ Feb. 17 2003,21:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">all the saw is is an automatic beefuped M16<span id='postcolor'> Um..not quite so. They are completely different weapons. The only thing that they have in common is the caliber. If you want to say that the Minimi (SAW) is similar to something, it's the FNC 80 (AK5) : <span id='postcolor'> I'm not too sure but i think he means in function and the way it acts (recoil), the SAW actually replaced 2 full auto M16A1's in the US Squads when it was introduced, also from what ive been told by one of our advisors/co producer (a serving staff sergeant in the US Army) the recoil is not that high

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ Feb. 17 2003,21:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, chris but they do look almost the same. I make that mistake sometimes... Jolly Green Giant (CH-3) CH-53 <span id='postcolor'> Actually Chris was right, and you were too, both the HH-3E and the HH-53 flew "Jolly Green" missions rescuing downed pilots, the HH-53's were known as "Super Jolly Green Giants":

Well, for a start this is probably more suited to the Work In Progress forum, but, the I44 demo, the Landser addon and the new WW2EC addons would probably be a good start

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CrunchyFrog @ Feb. 17 2003,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Is it me, or can you take a extreme amount of bullets? I mean, ok, a vest can stop a pistol or SMG, but not really a LMG or AR (I took a huge amount of pk/ak74 bullets without dying)<span id='postcolor'> a huge amount? i just tested and it was only about 4, which if you take into account real life is how many it would take to kill you pretty much instantly without hitting the heart/major artery with no vest, so i think the survivability has been modelled accurately...

http://www.concept-5.com/ballistic/ All 3 file types Thanks for the input guys.

Ok, we at BAS have a dilemma, we have a few releases coming up and its time to decide the format, at the minute its about a 50/50 split over zips/exe's so we are asking the people who the addons are for, what do you prefer? Please vote and give a reason for your vote if you want. I know these types of polls have been done before, but we would like an up to date poll and specifically for BAS addons.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Architeuthis @ Feb. 16 2003,00:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Please go with the *.rar compression. Man 6MB(!, that is an extra 45 minutes on my 56k. Sometimes even longer if the server is crap! So please, think about all the 56k peeps out there. Btw Evis, I believe you have a 56k too, so what do YOU prefer actually? Arch<span id='postcolor'> I am now leaning towards RAR after seeing the compression, ill be campaigning to get all 3 types hosted though...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Feb. 15 2003,23:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BAS-Damocles @ Feb. 15 2003,228)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Im certain that we can and will work with any and all server admins who request a specific format at the very least.<span id='postcolor'> Soo... you are going to make both exe and zip/rar/etc. versions? whats the point of this poll then? Or are you going to require everyone who wants a zip/rar/gz/tar/whatever to specially request it from you and you will then compress it for him/her and send it? <span id='postcolor'> there was just going to be an exe, this poll and other discussions has changed that... the compression differences for the deltas/rangers are: Unzipped = 30.8mb Zipped = 16.1mb .rar = 10.7mb

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gourka @ Feb. 15 2003,21:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What is you preferred file type for addons<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I know these types of polls have been done before, but we would like an up to date poll and specifically for BAS addons. <span id='postcolor'>

We are in the final stages of development, we are aiming for a release within the next 24 hours (most likely less)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DeadMeatXM2 @ Feb. 15 2003,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the whole pack is somewhere around 20mb zipped, so its no major biggy (i'm on 56k and have d/led it at least 5 times)<span id='postcolor'> Closer to 15mb (16mb)

http://west.flashpoint.ru/index.php?itemid=561 What was really said.