EchoFive USMC

Cut/Paste from a message during the most recent All Seeing Eye patch install: GlobalOps demo, Gore, Neverwinter Nights, OpFlash Resistance and America's Army don't have public master servers, hence they will not be supported unless the developers add direct support for All-Seeing Eye. This is a free service to game developers, it's up to you to let the developers know what the number one browser is.

Actually, NorSu, that wasn't my point, lol. Think about it , how could I justify excessive amounts of western gear being modeled because  of inferior Russian equipment, lol My point was that, while there are exceptions, on the whole, the hardware fielded by Warsaw Pact forces to line units in any significant numbers, particulary in the mid-80's, WAS inferior to NATO gear, and I think BIS handled that fairly accurately. They've also omitted capabilites from the West gear as well, such as lack of firing ports and crew LMG's on the Brads and M1A1. Rgr that on the lack of LGB , and the lack of a nimble attack helo for East..its not fair, so don't play MP maps that have that imbalance,or at least not in organized competition, or give both sides AH1 or AH64. And as far as the game goes, my squad plays East or West, without issue, and we consistenly win on either side of the ball. In fact, just last Sunday we won a CTF match handily (6-1) that included BMP2, T80, Bradley, and M1A1, and we were playing East.

Actually, NorSu, that wasn't my point, lol. Think about it , how could I justify excessive amounts of western gear being modeled because  of inferior Russian equipment, lol My point was that, while there are exceptions, on the whole, the hardware fielded by Warsaw Pact forces to line units in any significant numbers, particulary in the mid-80's, WAS inferior to NATO gear, and I think BIS handled that fairly accurately. They've also omitted capabilites from the West gear as well, such as lack of firing ports and crew LMG's on the Brads and M1A1. Rgr that on the lack of LGB , and the lack of a nimble attack helo for East..its not fair, so don't play MP maps that have that imbalance,or at least not in organized competition, or give both sides AH1 or AH64. And as far as the game goes, my squad plays East or West, without issue, and we consistenly win on either side of the ball. In fact, just last Sunday we won a CTF match handily (6-1) that included BMP2, T80, Bradley, and M1A1, and we were playing East.

Actually, NorSu, that wasn't my point, lol. Think about it , how could I justify excessive amounts of western gear being modeled because  of inferior Russian equipment, lol My point was that, while there are exceptions, on the whole, the hardware fielded by Warsaw Pact forces to line units in any significant numbers, particulary in the mid-80's, WAS inferior to NATO gear, and I think BIS handled that fairly accurately. They've also omitted capabilites from the West gear as well, such as lack of firing ports and crew LMG's on the Brads and M1A1. Rgr that on the lack of LGB , and the lack of a nimble attack helo for East..its not fair, so don't play MP maps that have that imbalance,or at least not in organized competition, or give both sides AH1 or AH64. And as far as the game goes, my squad plays East or West, without issue, and we consistenly win on either side of the ball. In fact, just last Sunday we won a CTF match handily (6-1) that included BMP2, T80, Bradley, and M1A1, and we were playing East.

You guys crack me up with the debate about BIS 'downgrading' Russian gear when compared with NATO counterparts.. Admittedly, of late, Russian gear has improved dramatically, but those of us old enough to remember and serve at the time when the Bear was our enemy know the following to be true: 1) Pact forces outnumbered us man for man and unit for unit down the line, particularly with tanks, for the 45 year span of the cold war. 2) NATO, particulary the US, recognized the only viable way we could counter these sheer numbers was with weapons, equipment, training, and tactics of a superior quality to Pact counterparts. 3) The largest fear NATO had during the Cold war, particulary the later stages, was that money spent on qualitative improvements to our warfighting systems would not be able to counter Pact numbers. There was never a question that helo for helo, fighter for fighter, tank for tank, we had superior gear, particulary in the later stages (post '80), when Reagan's ball-busting DoD budgets for R&D and procurement were hitting their stride. These same Defense budgets played heavily in the eventual economic collapse of the Soviet Union. This belief held up to scrutiny everytime we were able to get our hands on a captured piece of gear and tear it down. Anyone remember (late 60's/early 70's if memory serves) the MiG-25 the Russian pilot defected and flew to Japan with? At the time, the MiG-25 was feared greatly by SAC..We got our hands on it, stripped it down, and found its avionics suite to comprised of 50's era Vacuum tube technology gear. Its airframe and engines were heavy, comprised mostly of titanium, not the high strength, low-weight alloys and composites we had under R&D, and not far from deploying in operational aircraft, at the time. There are other examples from other times and wars..F86 vs Mig15 in Korea, Abrams vs T72/74 series in Desert Storm, and the various Israeli wars, where the Israeli's used NATO gear and the Arabs all had French/Russian gear. There are numerous other examples I could cite with other aircraft, armor, helos, etc, but for brevity's sake (lol), on the whole, I think BIS has done a decent job representing the qualitative differences in NATO and Pact gear. IMO, If you seek play balance in online multiplay, then urge your favorite mapmaker to represent the resource/tactical situation the way it was, numbers in favor of the Sovs. THAT will give you the play balance you seek.

You guys crack me up with the debate about BIS 'downgrading' Russian gear when compared with NATO counterparts.. Admittedly, of late, Russian gear has improved dramatically, but those of us old enough to remember and serve at the time when the Bear was our enemy know the following to be true: 1) Pact forces outnumbered us man for man and unit for unit down the line, particularly with tanks, for the 45 year span of the cold war. 2) NATO, particulary the US, recognized the only viable way we could counter these sheer numbers was with weapons, equipment, training, and tactics of a superior quality to Pact counterparts. 3) The largest fear NATO had during the Cold war, particulary the later stages, was that money spent on qualitative improvements to our warfighting systems would not be able to counter Pact numbers. There was never a question that helo for helo, fighter for fighter, tank for tank, we had superior gear, particulary in the later stages (post '80), when Reagan's ball-busting DoD budgets for R&D and procurement were hitting their stride. These same Defense budgets played heavily in the eventual economic collapse of the Soviet Union. This belief held up to scrutiny everytime we were able to get our hands on a captured piece of gear and tear it down. Anyone remember (late 60's/early 70's if memory serves) the MiG-25 the Russian pilot defected and flew to Japan with? At the time, the MiG-25 was feared greatly by SAC..We got our hands on it, stripped it down, and found its avionics suite to comprised of 50's era Vacuum tube technology gear. Its airframe and engines were heavy, comprised mostly of titanium, not the high strength, low-weight alloys and composites we had under R&D, and not far from deploying in operational aircraft, at the time. There are other examples from other times and wars..F86 vs Mig15 in Korea, Abrams vs T72/74 series in Desert Storm, and the various Israeli wars, where the Israeli's used NATO gear and the Arabs all had French/Russian gear. There are numerous other examples I could cite with other aircraft, armor, helos, etc, but for brevity's sake (lol), on the whole, I think BIS has done a decent job representing the qualitative differences in NATO and Pact gear. IMO, If you seek play balance in online multiplay, then urge your favorite mapmaker to represent the resource/tactical situation the way it was, numbers in favor of the Sovs. THAT will give you the play balance you seek.

You guys crack me up with the debate about BIS 'downgrading' Russian gear when compared with NATO counterparts.. Admittedly, of late, Russian gear has improved dramatically, but those of us old enough to remember and serve at the time when the Bear was our enemy know the following to be true: 1) Pact forces outnumbered us man for man and unit for unit down the line, particularly with tanks, for the 45 year span of the cold war. 2) NATO, particulary the US, recognized the only viable way we could counter these sheer numbers was with weapons, equipment, training, and tactics of a superior quality to Pact counterparts. 3) The largest fear NATO had during the Cold war, particulary the later stages, was that money spent on qualitative improvements to our warfighting systems would not be able to counter Pact numbers. There was never a question that helo for helo, fighter for fighter, tank for tank, we had superior gear, particulary in the later stages (post '80), when Reagan's ball-busting DoD budgets for R&D and procurement were hitting their stride. These same Defense budgets played heavily in the eventual economic collapse of the Soviet Union. This belief held up to scrutiny everytime we were able to get our hands on a captured piece of gear and tear it down. Anyone remember (late 60's/early 70's if memory serves) the MiG-25 the Russian pilot defected and flew to Japan with? At the time, the MiG-25 was feared greatly by SAC..We got our hands on it, stripped it down, and found its avionics suite to comprised of 50's era Vacuum tube technology gear. Its airframe and engines were heavy, comprised mostly of titanium, not the high strength, low-weight alloys and composites we had under R&D, and not far from deploying in operational aircraft, at the time. There are other examples from other times and wars..F86 vs Mig15 in Korea, Abrams vs T72/74 series in Desert Storm, and the various Israeli wars, where the Israeli's used NATO gear and the Arabs all had French/Russian gear. There are numerous other examples I could cite with other aircraft, armor, helos, etc, but for brevity's sake (lol), on the whole, I think BIS has done a decent job representing the qualitative differences in NATO and Pact gear. IMO, If you seek play balance in online multiplay, then urge your favorite mapmaker to represent the resource/tactical situation the way it was, numbers in favor of the Sovs. THAT will give you the play balance you seek.

Its all in yer manual, you just gotta read it. If you don't have it, you can download it at the linksys site. Everything you need to know is in that manual and on the support page for that router on the linksys site.

I have had two Linksys, BEFSR41 (4 Port Switch on the LAN, 1 WAN port for DSL or Cable), and a BEFSR11, basically the same thing, but with only one port on the LAN side. Note these are physical ports I'm referring to, not TCP/IP ports. I don't like the Linksys because you have to drop and re-establish your connect if you open or close ports in the router config..Very annoying, especially if you are on a Dynamic IP. Also, I had issues with the Linksys firmware getting corrupted frequently. To fix it, you would have to re-flash the firmware (kinda like a BIOS upgrade on yer mobo), which wipes your config out, so you have to set the router up again. Also very annoying. I've read in various forums that lots of folks have probs like this. Thirdly, if you do happen to need their Support, Netgear isn't great,  but Linksys support is nonexistent. One of these routers I gave to a friend, the other I'm selling to an unwitting victim for 1/2 off retail.  I bought a Netgear RT311, and couldn't be happier. Very stable, can make port changes without dropping the connect, and the only time its been down is when I've taken it down. So my .02, buy  a Netgear RT311 or RT314 (very similar), or whatever Netgear is selling that represents the new model of either of these two. If you do buy one of these models, make sure you visit the Netgear website, download  and install the latest greatest firmware revision for your model. The early firmware thats installed in a lot of the retail package stuff doesn't have all the features enabled...like port forwarding, lol.

Exe, I'm not goin near ICS issues on grounds that I may kill myself if I do . I Hate ICS, Damn ICS, I don't wanna know about ICS. Buy a router, lol. Ya BK, you can do what you ask with a router and port forwarding rules, as long as the ports Starcraft, Opflash, and GS need don't overlap.

No answers..I wish I did..I've noticed the same thing, but I haven't isolated it to addons..Very slow at receiving data with this patch.

If yer sharing a connect, you have a router or some type of ICS software. Either way, you'll have to open ports and create port forwading rules sending gamespy and opflash traffic to the IP of the PC that is acting as a server. How to do this, I can't help you with..Everyone has different equipment and software. Dig around using a search engine and the docs for your gear. You'll figure it out. Gamespy Arcade If you are behind a firewall and are able to change its settings, Arcade needs the following ports open in order to function (more ports might also be necessary in order to run certain games). Unless specified otherwise, the TCP ports are: 6667 (IRC) 80 (HTTP) 3783 (Voice Chat Port) 27900 (Master Server UDP Heartbeat) 28900 (Master Server List Request) 29900 (GP Connection Manager) 29901 (GP Search Manager) 13139 (Custom UDP Pings) 2234,2302,6073 Ports OFP needs open in order to host a server.

I didn't know that Armourdave..I thought the config was getting compared to a version specific hardcode checksum. So yer saying if the server has an addon, for example, that mods the config, and you don't, when you connect to that server, it will show you as using a modified config? If thats the case, then using the modified config msg is absolutely not a reliable way to detect cheats. There are hundreds if not thousands of add-ons out there, a sizable number of which appear to mod the config. Throw in what appears to be OFP reading a modified config because of driver issues??? The chances of a player having a mod or driver installed that would cause the server to report a modified config are excellent.

Last night, I finally got around to doing a full uninstall, registry scrub, reinstall of 1.2 off the CD, Redhammer Gold Upgrade (1.3), and then a 1.42 uprdade. I've been unable to play online for a week because I kept locking up at Creating Client. I reinstalled none of the addons I've been using because of all the stuff in the air over addons. So..it was a pure, 100% BIS approved install. My squaddie Ming put a private server up for a little co-op, he says I connected with a modified config message the first time. My os crashed about 2 minutes into the map, nVidia's beta det 27.xx drivers BSOD'd my Win2k machine. I rebooted, reinstalled the det 27.xx video drivers, went back in , Ming said no modified config message on connect that time. My point is, that even with a fresh install and no addons, this game is so freakin buggy, you can get a modified config msg from a server, seemingly at random, just from probs with vid drivers, and probably directx, audio drivers, and any other driver in the stack that the game calls. This isn't a post that is intended to have anything to do with whats been going on with FHA and us, so please don't take it back there, k? I'm just sharing what I think is a flaw in the game, and I think relying strictly on the modified config message to identify a cheat is not enough. OOTH, I haven't seen how detailed the modified config messages are under 1.45, but frankly, I've never seen one at all under any version. Maybe it is good enough now, unless BIS has holes in that code as well.