Ether Dragon

How do I get EAX working in OF? If I turn on EAX/Hardware Acceleration I get the typical problem of hearing the footsteps of distant troops as if they were marching up and down my ear canal. According to the FAQ's, there's supposed to be a driver for Creative Lab cards, but that doesn't help for anyone with a different brand.

I created a similar post to this one on my sound card manufacturer's tech forum. One of the replies back piqued my interest, and I thought I'd pass it along in case anyone has either tried this or wants to. A reply in the thread provided this link: EAX key commands While the site is Half-life oriented, the poster suggested that the commands are actually useable in any game. Maybe you need access to a console screen, though?

So after the numerous threads hyping the eDimensional glasses and how well they work with OFP, I couldn't resist ordering my own pair. Â They arrived yesterday and I didn't waste anytime hooking them up. Â After doing some quick configuring, I jumped into OFP so I could...do some more configuring! Â No, really. Â I spent the rest of the night trying to tweak the game so it would work. Â Nothing I did seemed to bring me any closer to that goal. I think the largest and most immediate problem is the siting system. Â I've read a number of posts saying that these glasses actually improved their game, and I have to ask how??? Â The sites are 2D, and I quickly found out that they're almost impossible to properly align with a target. Â I resorted to closing one eye when aiming, which gave me a 2D view. Â Um, doesn't that completely ruin the purpose of using 3D glasses? The other big problem I experienced was faint ghost images, especially around larger objects like tanks. Â Perhaps it's the sheer scale of the maps, but if I adjust the stereo seperation one way, distant items have more pronounced ghosting, and if I try to correct that, suddenly near items, like my M-16 get a dual image. Â Either way, it's very hard on the eyes. Â The game got excellent marks from nVidia, which gives me hope that my inexperience with setting up the glasses is the cause. Â I tried Rogue Spear, a game with equally high marks, and it was even worse. Â I expected it would be improved due to the small map size, but no. Lastly, I tried IL-2 Sturmovik, and suddenly the world was right. Â Without having to do any configuration at all, suddenly nearly everything was in focus. Â I found myself flying nape of the earth for the first time, as I could accurately discern my distance from the ground. Â There was only a slight inconsistency with the cockpit display, a little ghosting around the gauges, and a clear double image of a canopy rail that extended to the top of the screen edge. Â The game wasn't without problems, however. Â Whenever I tried to access the in-flight map, or toggle the padlock view, my computer froze and required a reboot. So, for those of you that have experienced bliss with your glasses, I'd appreciate any tips you can throw my way for improving my new pair. Â Oh yeah: nVidia drivers GeForce 2 Mag 800V 19" monitor Windows XP

I've had a couple of incidents where my weapon has fired all on it's own. The last time I noticed that it switched from semi-auto to burst when doing so. These misfires frequently spell my death, as it alerts nearby troops to my position when I'm not in a defensible location or trying to sneak by a large group. Any idea how I can fix this problem?

The best way to use a LAW against an M1 tank is to hop up on the turret, aim it at the commanders hatch, and tell them to surrender. I've said this before, in real life, LAWs aren't considered much of a threat against an M1. Okay, there's the fact that LAW's aren't usually owned by opposition forces, but they also don't have the punch needed to significantly threaten the tank. It would have to be a very well placed shot - something that isn't likely (as any LAW user can testify.) Older tanks, like the M60 are more at risk, but then, the LAW and the M60 date back to around the same time frame. Mostly the LAW is capable against light armor targets, like personell carriers or older tanks.

Scopes? Heck, this game takes place in nine-teen eighty five! You're lucky you even get an assault rifle. Shoot, anything more than a flintlock is pushing reality, if'n you ask me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ALDEGA @ April 04 2002,12:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep, but 3Dmark isn't a game and input lag is thus not an issue. 3Dmark is about getting the highest possible framerate, regardless of any side effects.<span id='postcolor'> I use 3DMark simply to show a relevant example of the performance hit these tweaks are causing. My other favorite current game, IL2 Sturmovich, is rendered nearly inoperable with these work-arounds in place due to the drop in frame rate. It's like taking off on a runway using a slideshow. Click - heading down the runway. Click - torque has pulled you off the runway. Click - full screen picture of control tower. Click - flames! My god, the flames!

Update: Â I did a little experimenting and found that I can turn on hardware acceleration without EAX and not get the amazingly loud footsteps. Â About the only thing I noticed by doing so, however, was that everything seemed muffled, except the wind seems to have picked up a little. Â Every once and awhile some loud noise popped in for a second, but it didn't really kill gameplay. What is hardware acceleration supposed to do for the game? Â Is it worth messing with when EAX isn't working? On another note, why does this game provide and EAX option when it doesn't work? Â At least, it seems that it wasn't working before Creative Labs released it's new drivers - and that only provides support for their new Audigy. Â The way I look at it, if you're going to provide a feature, and list it as a feature, it should work. Â Otherwise you should just wipe it from the game so customers don't feel like they're getting ripped off.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ALDEGA @ April 04 2002,11:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you also have lagging input then? If so, have you set vsync on? Or set prerender max to 1 frame?<span id='postcolor'> My input lag isn't noticeable anymore. I turned off V-Sync and set the prerender to zero frames. NVMax only allows you to drop your prerender to one frame, but using a tip at Avon Lady, I was able to access an additional panel in the Windows graphics panel that allowed me to adjust most of the same settings found in NVMax. It allowed me to set it to the recommended 0 frames. I don't know why NVMax limits you to 1 frame. What bothers me about having to do this is the performance hit these tweaks incur in every other game I have. 3DMark did a good job of showing the difference, as my score dropped about 800 points using the work-around for OFP. Maybe the die-hard OFP players don't have any other games that they enjoy playing, but I sure as heck do. Anyways, I'm ranting, so I'll stop now.

The first couple of times it happened, I wasn't really paying attention, but I believe it is only in multiplayer games. I don't know how it could be packet loss - I've hosted every multiplayer game I've played so far. I'm using the latest version of the game - upgrade 4. I downloaded it about two weeks ago when I bought the game. My fire button is mapped to the default left mouse button. My mouse is alright, at least it never does random clicks in any other applications. I can't believe it's the mouse anyways, since the game is also switching my firing mode. This happened again last night, but luckily I was out of range of enemy detection (although still sneaking.) I have had to deal with the input lag problem, but it seems mostly fixed (although I'm not at all happy about the work-arounds we're forced to use.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WKK Gimbal @ April 04 2002,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You've been watching Enemy at the gates too many times  I'm sure, if a sniper is located in real life, they won't send out another sniper to duel him, they'd simply level 100km2 with rockets.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, it has happened in somewhat modern times. During Vietnam, the North Vietnamese put bounties on US Snipers. Carlos Hathcock, the Marine sniper I mentioned earlier, was involved in a sniper duel like what's being discussed here. It was so intense that his spotter had his canteen shot at one point, as I recall.

I really don't know how the autoloader system works, but I'm passing on what was explained to me. Perhaps the T-72 or older tanks are what dealt with the problem of having to retarget after reload - back before computers were really available to assist in such functions. One thing that I haven't seen get much attention is the sheer rarity of the T-80 tanks. Things may have changed since I was in the service (ETS '91,) but back then the T-80 was very limited in number - primarily due to it's cost. I imagine that Russia has increased their numbers since then, but their small numbers weren't considered much of a threat back in the 80's.

I'm sure the first thing an architect does when drawing up a church is think, "Okay, how can I align the bell tower to provide the best fields of fire?" It's not up to the developers to create specific locations for prime sniping. It's up to the sniper to use the terrain available to his best advantage. I haven't used the sniper rifle a lot in-game, but I haven't had any problems with it's performance so far. To give an example, I took a sniper rifle and a LAW for a single player quick mission. I forget the name, but you and two other commandos are tasked with killing about 30 troops in a town. I checked the map and found the nearest elevation that would let me target the town through the morning fog and set up just below the ridgeline. In short order, I had dropped every soldier that was standing a post, and stirred up the beehive. They sent a BMP to scout my location, and I let it eat my LAW. Back to sniping. Only one soldier tried to move up on my position, and I dropped him. The rest contented themselves with running back and forth in confusion. I'd take a few pot shots at them as they ran (suppressive fire,) and was rewarded on occassion with a guy diving to the ground - where they became a much easier target by not moving. Only rarely did I need to shoot a target more than once. Eventually I ran out of targets and, unable to find a decent elevation with a new perspective, I eventually ran into the town and cleared it out with a PK I picked up off one of my earlier victims. My only real gripe was that the fog kept me from making any longer shots. I hope that I wasn't encountering a draw distance limitation. I loved waiting to see my bullet reach it's target and the need to adjust my windage, however. I moved from location to location on the ridgeline, but no one ever got into a range to return fire on me (aside from the BMP.) Now then, sniping is about much more than killing a single opponent or scouting. A sniper makes a huge difference on a battlefield. Most infantry platoons will have at least one soldier that has attended sniper school (US Army.) Their accurate long range fire is very effective at suppressing the enemy and pinning them down. An oft used example is the Marine sniper that pinned down a Vietnamese infantry company and subsequently killed all 40 soldiers in it during the course of an evening. After killing the point man, the enemy soldiers took cover and every attempt to flee met with a bullet. The reason that snipers are often called cowards has nothing to do with their bravery, but the fear they instill in the enemy. About the only defense an infantryman has against a sniper is name calling. =) You can't help but hate someone that can own your butt from a mile away. Snipers have proved their bravery on many occassions, as with the two snipers who gave their lives protecting the downed Blackhawk crew in Somalia (they both received the Medal of Honor posthumously.)

Game wise I couldn't tell you. In reality, the question is very subjective, since M1's are loaded manually. I don't recall if the T-80 uses an auto loader, but I believe other Soviet tanks did. As I recall, what made them slow wasn't so much the reload, as the need for the barrel to move to certain angle in order for the next round to load. That had the effect of forcing the gunner to spend time reorienting after every shot. M1 tank crews train to reload the main gun in less than five seconds, and a three second reload time is not uncommon once a loader gets some practice. The main gun remains steady during reload, but the gunner can still target, and the main gun will automatically readjust once loading is complete.

Wee! Â I'm getting all kinds of good replies. Â Hey, it's just an opinion. Â I was in the army, I had to tear both down on a fairly regular basis. Â I felt that they were very similar in design. Â Then again, it's been over ten years since I got out, so I don't doubt that I could be missing some aspect that makes them different. Â Okay, one is called an M-60 and was designed in the '50s, while the other is called an M-240 and is an FN MAG. Â Despite the name change, tell me what makes them different in their mechanics? Â Honestly, about the only thing I remember is lifting the belt tray, popping the spring out the back, and replacing the barrel. Â The more I think about it, I might be mistaking the spring from the .50 cal. Anyways, as I said, I used both the M60 and the M240 on a regular basis, and I can't remember a single difference in their assembly - at least not from a basic maintenance standpoint. Â I really don't care if the firing pin is 2mm longer on one than the other or something.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DodgeME @ April 03 2002,06:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I want Milla Jovovich <span id='postcolor'> You can't have her, she's mine. I saw her first! Back to the topic: Is there any way to get surround sound without EAX? I'm using a Cambridge 4 point sound system, but everything seems to be in stereo. I can't tell which way a vehicle is coming from or anything. Surround sound makes a huge tactical difference - something I learned with Rogue Spear.

He'd look even meaner if he didn't have the M.I.L.E.S. gear on the weapons. =)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ April 02 2002,15:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One interesting thing i feel i should point out and ask the OFP community at this point; I want to point out that we now have close to 60% of voters here that said they really did want ALL the horrors of war in their games, yet everyone whos ever been in combat before has said that its something you really DONT want to have in your games. Something iv just now been thinking about is that, if we really did have a game that real, would it still be a game? Think about the nature of a game. A game entails fun. It entails excitement, joy, entertainment, in some cases physical excercise, and so forth. Does a game entail fear? Desperation? Guilt? Remorse? A strong sense of stress? The deaths of your loved ones, and quite possibly you too? Just something to think about....<span id='postcolor'> My opinion is that you don't really need to see limbs and brain bits go spattering about in order to get a sense of what combat is like. War is not about the gore factor, it's more about the fear. You have to accept that you could die at any moment, from one of a hundred different ways, and there's nothing you can do about it. You just have to learn to soldier on and hope that your side doesn't get tripped up by an ambush or something. Battle fatigue isn't caused by the constant sound of shelling, it's caused by the constant fear that the next shell is going to land on you. You flinch at each explosion, expecting it to be "the one." When a soldier gets too focused on that, things go down hill. I keep reading posts suggesting that real war means the addition of killing innocent women and children/civillians. Yes, depending on the situation civillians could get caught in a crossfire, but the forces involved in OF are primarily professional soldiers. I know for certain that American soldiers would detest the idea of killing innocents - intentionally or not, and I'm almost as certain that the same could be said of Soviet forces (no matter how much we villainized them in the Cold War.) Any soldier that took to killing civillians would be immediately taken back and court martialed - at the very least. I can well imagine his squad mates shooting him on the spot (heck, he's armed and just gone nuts.) Given that, I see little reason to include such scenarios in a game. Let that stuff play out in an anti-Vietnam movie, but that's hardly the purpose of a combat sim. Beyond a certain point, gore is just added for the shock value. It's there to get the headlines and draw attention to the game. "Any publicity is good publicity?" From a combat perspective, you just have to know that your opponent is incapacitated, not that your shot took the back of his skull with it. I think that I'd prefer to see wounding similar to what is in Rogue Spear - a bullet sized red dot that shows where you hit your target. I'm more interested in where my shots hit than just seeing a mangled face.

Seeing as how I only recently bought the game, I've just now completed the first tank mission for the campaign. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw the tank crews. Myself, a Platoon Leader, am commanding a tank driven and gunned by two Company Commanders. Not only that, but the other two tanks in my platoon are crewed by a mix of Company and Battalion Commanders. What the heck? Sorry BSI, but unlike aircraft which is typically piloted by officers, tank crews normally consisted of enlisted personel. A typical crew would consist of an E1/E2 Private in the loader position (something omitted in OFP, despite existing in both U.S. tanks modeled,) an E3 Private First Class as driver, an SPC4/E4/E5 (Specialist/Corporal/Sergeant) as gunner, and an E5/E6/E7 as tank commander. Please note that there is no set rank for each position, but if there is a difference in rank among the crew, the lowest to highest rank will go loader, driver, gunner, TC. It's not impossible for a gunner to be a PFC, and I commanded a tank as a SPC4. Where officers do exist in tank platoons, they are always the tank commander. Each platoon will have one 2nd Lieutenant acting as the Platoon Leader, and each company (4 platoons) will have one TC among them that has a Captain and and another with his first officer, a 1st Lieutenant. Each Battalion (consisting of several tank companies) will be lead by the Battalion Commander (Lt. Colonel) and his first officer (Major,) both with their own tank. Each of their tanks will also have a secondary tank commander (NCO) in case the officers would prefer to stay at HQ or use other modes of transportation instead (HMMWV's.)

The Bradley is a piece of crap. Where did you hear that it destroyed more armor than the M1 tanks did? I find that hardly unlikely, but if it were true, it wasn't because it was a better performer than the M1. The only reason it would have gotten a higher kill ratio is because the mechanized scouting units were out in front of the main assault. Most armor was taken out by aircraft, not ground forces. The reason I doubt your story is because the main armor battles took place between tanks, not tanks and Bradleys. Why do I say the Bradley is a piece of crap? It's a scout vehicle, but it's louder, slower, spews black diesel exhaust that's easy to see from a distance, and has a higher silouette (easier to hit) than the M1 tank. With it's turret, it looks sufficiently like a tank to draw anti-tank attacks, while it's armor will only protect it from lighter weapons. When it does get hit by an anti-tank weapon, it will incinerate the crew and any infantry it's carrying thanks to the placement of it's fuel tanks.

Having been an actual crew member on an M1 and M1A1 tank, I'd like to add in my opinion on some of this. Â Mind you, this isn't game mechanics, but real life I'm talking about. Â First up, the M1 and T80 are fairly closely matched in combat effectiveness. Â Both used a turbine engine, making them fast and maneuverable. Â Both could destroy one another with a single solid hit with their main gun. Â Neither one would survive a hit from an anti-tank missile like a Hellfire. Â The T80 uses reactive armor, which ads more protection than what the M1/M1A1 comes with standard. Â Survivability really comes down to where the tank gets hit - and that in turn relies heavily on accuracy and range. Â In that catagory, the M1/M1A1 wins. Â US doctrine has always placed importance on technology to beat superior numbers. Â Thus, the M1 tanks are meant to take out the enemy tanks before they get in range to return fire. On another subject, saying that the T-34 was anything less than the best tank of WW2 is a huge mistake. Â It was a technological marvel, incorporating many of the ingenious features developed by (the American designer ) Walter Christie. Â It introduced sloped armor to deflect rounds, the innovative Christie suspension that is still in use in many armored vehicles today, wide tracks to handle the large variety of Russian climates and terrain, a diesel engine that reduced the risk of gasoline fires (made famous by American Shermans,) and a powerful main gun. Â Wherever the tank appeared, it stalled or turned back the German advance.

I voted for total realism, but I guess I just wasn't being as imaginative as some here. I'm not interested in gore, but I am interested in technical reality. Weapons and equipment should operate as close to real-life parameters as possible. If I shoot a guy in the head, I don't want to see his health bar drop a little, I want to see him drop completely. If I shoot him in the arm, I want to see him drop his weapon. If enough of his buddies drop around him, I wouldn't mind seeing him surrender (that's something I really like about Rogue Spear.) I don't need to see a leg blown off, just that the victim acted apropriately for no longer being able to use that leg would be fine. OF does a good job in some instances, but I don't think it models damage to different areas as effectively as it should. Bullets ripping through walls. If a soldier gets hit, he should fall down - even if his body armor saves him, the impact should have an effect. I've been in front-line war, and you don't want to see the true horrors of it in a game, even if it's a simulation. Heck, you couldn't if you wanted to. The smells, the fear, the feel, it's just not there - and that's a good thing. So, when I say I want all the horrors of war, keep in mind that I'm just looking at the technical aspects, not the gore factor.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ April 01 2002,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The FN MAG looks remarkably like the M240B (see pic of me below), which is also made by FN/Browning USA. Is it basically the same gun? I've never got my hands on an FN MAG. Also, does it eject the shell casings from the bottom like a 240B? This is an improvement over the 60 that I enjoy becase I am left handed, and you can't shoot a 60 left handed because the ejection port will puke hot brass all over you. The M240B may look similar to a 60, but if you open it up the actions are worlds apart. The FN action is ingeniously simple. Yes, the 60 is a piece of crap, and it jams alot. Like the FN MAG (FN is famous for adjustable gas system which allows thier guns to fire blanks, different types of 7.62 rounds etc without malfunctioning, also allows it to fire dirty,) the 240 rarely jams. Good sturdy weapon, and it is more accurate than the 60.<span id='postcolor'> The M240 is very similar to an M60 with only a few alterations. It's originally meant as a vehicle mounted weapon - the M1 tank using two of them. If you look at your picture, you can see a hole on the bottom to the left of your left hand. A pin slides through that hole to secure it to the vehicle's weapon mounts, and then locks in position with a second clamp on the back. The stock goes away, as does the handle, to be replaced with various triggers depending on it's location in the vehicle. The M240b is just an infantry configuration, and the the M240 has several other variations as well - mostly for various vehicle mountings. I never played with an FN MAG, but I've used several versions of the M240 as well as the M60. They both strip down about the same.

When you zoom in with a LAW rocket, you see a single vertical bar and several horizontal bars. I assume that the horizontal bars are used to angle the launcher and account for distance, but there are no distance indications listed, and nothing in the manual mentions the scope at all! Could someone tell me what the horizontal bars equate to? 50 m, 100 m, what? Also, where does it start, assuming that the top bar is for the closest targets. Lastly, how do you determine a target's distance on a 2D screen? Thanks for any and all answers. =)

Wow, you guys are saying you actually like the characters? I've found them to be pretty annoying so far. The sergeant has been the worst so far. Whenever he talks, the only thing I can visualize is someone reading straight from a cue card. His tone of voice, especially, has absolutely nothing to do with the situation. My guess is that he read the cue cards without a clue as to the storyline. "Okay, here's your motivation: you're a sergeant who likes to yell a lot. Now read this line..." What's really annoyed me has been the AI for them. In the mission where you drive the 5-ton and follow the sergeant, I spent about five minutes watching him spin his tires against a road sign. I finally gave up and drove off without him, and only after that did he finally free himself and catch up. Later on, I got in the back of the 5-ton and let the AI drive...straight into a house. Get this - then it managed to squeeze itself inbetween two houses, with it's front against one, and it's rear against another. What ensued hasn't been seen since Austin Powers attempted to turn the golf-cart around in the corridor of Dr. Evil's lair. Next stop, I was ordered into the back of another 5-ton along with the rest of my unit, pulling out after checking on the Lieutenant. We all clambered in, except for one guy with two injured legs. He low crawled up to the truck...and sat there. Every so often the medic would try to heal him from inside the 5-ton, but it wouldn't work. After a lot more time wasted, I finally climbed out, thinking I might just shoot the guy and put him out of my misery. He must have read my mind, because the moment I got out, he climbed right up in the truck.