Fortran

Please ban this guy, your obviously only here to stir up rubbish and try debate that OFPDR Is better than ARMA2, which btw, you have failed miserably at. Between you and that space guy (67 posts out of 68 ALL in OFPDR forum arguments) we could really do without you here. It makes no odds what your opinion of Arma2 is, we are debating the merits (or lack of) of OFPDR. Btw peak (yes peak not pique) hours the servers are pushed to about 1500 players, not the 300 you keep quoting. ARMA2 is no longer in any way shape or form broken, BIS supported and listened to the community and provided the correct patches as necessary, which fixed some slight problems with a great game, unfortunately for OFPDR no amount of patches can re-design the entire ego engine. Finally, try not to forget when you keep attempting to push your sales figures down our throats that OFPDR is released on Xbox360, PS3 and sadly PC as well so is it not reasonable to expect the console community will have VASTLY accelerated the sales against ARMA2, which is so far only available on PC. Lets face facts, its probably the best game in this genre available on console at this time, so it is quite obvious that the sales figures will reflect that. If you hadn't come in here spouting your mouth, insulting the community and then trying to push absolute random player numbers and completely false information about A2 you may have received a slightly more congenial response. For the final time, we are not comparing or discussing ARMA2, we already know how damn good it is, this thread is for discussion of OFPDR, which as we now know...isn't so damn good.

Not that there anything really "special" about the bonus missions lol but all versions from all retails can unlock the additional content with these codes: Case sensitive btw: Ambush: AmbushU454 Close Quarters: CloseQ8M3 Coastal Stronghold: StrongM577 Debris Field: OFPWEB2 Encampment: OFPWEB1 Night Raid: RaidT18Z

Well if thats your argument, minesweeper on my pc works and requires no tweaking at all...but that alone does not make it a "better" game. At the end of the day if you enjoyed the game that's all well and good, as did I, but to say it is better than A2 just because of those 2 points is pretty invalid. There will be plenty of satisfied customers for OFP2 around the world but the chances of you finding those people amongst a community who expects and is provided with more in a game than just a superficial "military-esque" experience is not feasible.

Ouch...lol that really pretty much sums it up, its actually quite painful to look at them side by side like this. Aside from the insane lack of polygons what on earth is the resolution of their texture sheets...looks like 512x512 for the entire helo at the max.

Well the inclusion of the modding section and tool request section to the forum seems to indicate that there will be some support in this area. I don't see the point of them discussing it if there is to be no modding (not just mission editing) support and as it has been posted by a moderator there it appears to be more than just pure speculation. http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=373722 http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=341533

Actually appears that there will be fully fledged modding support for the game if you take a look, would most certainly be a VERY wise choice by CM to work with the community and supply the tools so this game can be transformed into something better.

Yes you need to parent the bones in the bone definition. Example: "f_gear_1","", "f_gear_2","f_gear_1", f_gear_2 is the child of f_gear_1 in this example, so when f_gear_1 moves so will f_gear_2

Ok had a chance to play this myself, here are my own brief thoughts about it. 1: For starters this is NOT a mil-sim, and its NOT OFP, its a well constructed FPS with some tactical elements. 2: Graphics are obviously console port and the resolution of the sheets used reflect this, saying that the over-all environment presentation gels well and it has a good visual style, somewhere near to COD4 in many ways. To its testament this results in a VERY smooth performance at all times, I could max out everything running at 1440x900 and get a very stable 40fps, something I just cannot get with Arma2 unfortunately. 3: Sound, in my opinion is one of the areas the game excels, they are sharp, clear, realistic and do give you a nice sense of the battlefield when you crank up the volume. 4: As has been said before the entire campaign game is scripted, I don't really understand CM's boasts of a total free-roam 250x250km map when failure to follow the narrow, channelling of the checkpoint system either results in you missing vital AI triggers, death from TOTALLY random mortar bombardments or save-points (which are also run on the waypoint/checkpoint system). This results in the same kind of narrow choices as any other FPS game and although you can choose to assault a position from several angles, moving between areas really limits your choices. Also as each mission is its own unique "act" it feels very disjointed as you leave the island between every mission before starting the next, this kind of destroys the continuity and the point of having a massive island to play on. 5: Although the game utilizes several vehicles, getting a chance to use them in the campaign is non-existent, from material I read before buying the game it suggested that you would be put in the role of a pilot, tank commander, spec-ops and infantry unit, suggesting maybe that there would be missions that utilized these roles. However the reality is that aside from the spec-ops and infantry missions the use of vehicles is really just down to driving the HMMWV or a stolen Chinese version of the same vehicle between a couple of checkpoints and then getting out to continue on foot. Im sure the MP version of the game allows players to utilize the vehicles more fully but the SP element of the game does not. Also to add to the vehicles themselves, the handling is strange to say the least and it feels like the wheels of even your Abram's have had a liberal application of butter applied to them before you left camp. 6: Multiplayer element is just bound to die within a few weeks. No dedicated servers means your at the mercy of the ping-monster, resulting in most games acting like slide-shows. No CD key, No anti-cheat system in-place will have the cheaters tear this game a new-one as soon as a single hack has been developed. Saying that playing the campaign in co-op is alot of fun, but as the campaign itself is only 11 missions and as said before scripted, it gets old very quickly. 7: Models are fairly decent, low-poly for the consoles they were developed for but look ok, the gibbing system on the characters adds a nice little element but nothing spectacular. However the one horrendous thing is the LOD switching on the models which, considering they weren't exactly highpoly in the first place, means that moving about 10 feet away from a vehicle or model results in you looking at pretty much just a textured box. The LOD switches are not smooth and seems to consist of only 3-4 lod's maximum each of which steps down by a vast amount. 8: No modding capability and no promise of an SDK release means that OFP:DR will die fairly swiftly, as everybody who loved OFP knows its the one thing that has the game still being played and worked on by the community even today. However, the mission editor is very robust, featuring LUA scripting capability so im sure there will be many new user-missions created for the game, if anything the mission editor that ships with the game is pretty much the highlight. 9: The actual command interface utilizes the como-rose as seen in BF2, but unfortunately somebody on the design team seemed to think that it would work better if you couldn't move while issuing commands and had to use the WSAD keys to navigate the rose, this is a bit of a pain in the backside to be honest, it slows you down and instead of being able to move into a tactical position while issuing flanking or suppresion orders for your team you have to sit and do it first then move, which destroyed it a little for me. As well as this chaining "like" orders together is not possible, for example to issue a new formation for your team, followed by an ROE order followed by a "spread" order means you have to jump in and out of the commo-rose three times, when you really would have liked to been able to chain these orders together once while the rose is open. Also as a completley unrelated note, this same person thought that we prefer to have to HOLD down the scope/optics key when we want the scope or ironsights up instead of allowing it to be toggled, which means you spend 99% of your combat time holding the right mouse button down. Do that for 5 hours and you do tend to get a bit peeved about it. 10: Another small point is the ammo, with the hit-detection seemingly a little bit "pot-luck" occasionally you tend to expend rounds quicker than you might have thought. There are no allied pickup areas in each mission meaning that once your rounds are out your issued weapon is useless. This leaves you with the option of picking up from a Chinese ammo crate (which seem thin on the ground to say the least) or looting a body, however the bodies only stay on the ground for 30 seconds so unless you sprint into the area you just cleared from a resonable engagement distance the chance of picking up the ammo or weapons will be lost before you get there. Another thing that got on my nerves a little was the lack of choice when it came to weaponry. It would have been nice to get a chance to pick your squads load-out or even just your own, but this is not possible, you are issued with a rifle and equipment for the mission and that is that, I know that is "realistic" in some-ways but this is not a mil-sim as I said before so I think the kind of people who will love this game would have liked that ability there. All in all I really enjoyed playing Dragon Rising campaign, its was a short (about 5 or less hours) but fun experience, however it has ZERO lastability and very little replay value due to the scripted nature of the campaign. Once the MP game gets destroyed by hackers it will all be over. Was sad to see this game so hyped and anticipated, the material that was released by CM seemed to promise (or leave room for speculation) more than it delivered but with the console systems being prioritized by the developers this was inevitable. I suggest you play it for yourself, those who are not looking for a die-hard mil-sim experience but want something more than COD4 should enjoy it. I recommend grabbing a copy once it goes in the bargain basket of your local gamestore.

It is invisible to radar, incredibly hard for AI to spot and identify and impossible to lock on-to. However, if: A: The landing-gear is down B: The weapon bay is open C: The jet is banking or pitching at high angles Then the radar-cross-section is substantial enough and the plane is then locatable on radar and lockable by ground2air and air2air system. The pilot is warned of this by the RCS light illuminating on the eyebrow lamp.

Should be releasing a playable beta in a few weeks, just had alot of "real-life" work to deal with recently so haven't had much time to work on it. Unfortunately ARMA2 doesn't support more than one camera, or a render-to-texture feature which is necessary for this kind of system. Sad but true.

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/ArmA:_Event_Handlers#Fired

Just trying to do a simple replacement for the Javelin's hud to create something more realistic. Created a new Optic model and texture which all looks fine, then wrote a quick replacement config: class CfgPatches { class javelin_hud { units[] = {}; weapons[] = {}; requiredAddons[] = {}; }; }; class CfgAddons { class PreloadAddons { class javelin_hud { list[] = {"javelin_hud"}; }; }; }; class cfgWeapons { class Default; class LauncherCore; class Launcher; class Javelin: Launcher { modelOptics = "\javelin_hud\javelin_optika.p3d"; }; }; But no-dice, in-game the javelin is still using the same TOW optika hud as normal. Can anybody see where im messing this up ?

Sure :) Im actually in the process of trying to get it to function correctly (ie icons light up due to user actions). I will be releasing that for either the Bis Javelin or for my own Javelin model, including different attack modes, correct hand positions etc.

Ah ok, still trying to get to grips with replacements, thank you very much Kju, works now! Can get on with getting it to function properly now with any luck.

Ah ok wasn't aware of that, only added it after having the problem described in the first post. Actually didn't know about that code before and found that same code inside the GDT Javelin addon you posted here (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=87226) so I figured it was worth a try, will remove it if it causes issues. Yeah tried that also, still no luck, still loading the original optics. Thanks for the input though, will keep trying until it works. If the config looks ok it must be some other issue, will have another look. ---------- Post added at 12:10 AM ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 11:26 PM ---------- Ok well this is weird, even if I attempt to change the display name it makes no difference. Final config: class CfgPatches { class javelin_hud { units[] = {}; weapons[] = {}; requiredAddons[] = {}; }; }; class cfgWeapons { class Default; class LauncherCore; class Launcher; class Javelin: Launcher { displayName = "NEWJAV"; modelOptics = "\javelin_hud\javelin_optika"; }; }; But no changes in-game. Have removed all addons and am just trying loading it with this single new one so no conflicts there, but nothing seems to be working with it...

Nice! Would be great to have a fully functioning carrier again for A2!

Very nice indeed mate, she's a beauty!

Yeah I guess it would be, might look into that as a possibility also, thanks mate. That is looking top-notch Mike! the ruined building is looking fantastic but the ivy is a work of art! Will make a nice snipers nest :)

Yeah was thinking maybe another UAV terminal vehicle styled system or have it airdropped to your location. Carting it around with you is not an option really lol. Currently 20k polys with the control box, obviously it was modelled first and foremost for rendering not for a game engine but it won't take me long to strip it down and re-model parts of it for the engine, the cylinders are hogging most of the polys at the moment and have an un-godly amount of sides so replacing those alone for a start will drop the count down a hell of a lot. As for animating the 3D tracks, im not sure if or how thats going to be possible as the axis will have to be in an chamfered rectangle shape which I don't think (don't know for sure) is possible, so might have to do it via textures instead perhaps. How are the normal A2 tank tracks done? Just animated UVs' ?

Thanks for the tip mate, yes alot of them are hidden selections and alot for the individual gauges. Do you mean with the cylinders to rotate them so they show different textures instead of using hidden selection? Thanks again for your help.

Wow nice USSRsniper, thats looking sweet! Maybe a tiny touch less scratches on the edges of the mag but overall it looks very nice indeed! Needed some down time away from the F-117A for a couple of days after so many weeks bashing away at it so I figured I would finish off the model for my 2nd A2 project. Needs alot of optimization and will need to re-model certain sections but the basic mesh is done. Figured it might make an interesting addition to the battlefield. Will be making several weapon variations. The Foster-Miller SWORDS Talon:

Its probably due to the number of textures then partly I guess. The p3d is not optimized as of yet so I will go through it properly and double check everything you have suggested and after going through the tutorial you linked to. Although I have yet to get a major performance impact so far and due to it's nature there shouldn't be more than one or two of these on the battlefield at any one time, I would like to get it as optimized as is humanly possible. Thanks very much for your help and the link, will go back and have a good look through and see where im going wrong with this. :)

Yeah sure: LOD0.000 = 31 sections 7804 faces ViewPilotLOD = 145 sections 15776 faces The high sections count is no doubt down to the "modular" way I had to build the cockpit. As I wasn't exactly sure how the engine handled 3d when I started working with this engine, alot of corrections had to be made and readjustments so I chopped up the mesh into smaller components so I could fix and add things without having to affect the entire model. I realize this is probably not the best way to go about things and for the next model I make I will be better prepared next time. The cockpit model (mesh wise) is all in-place now so I won't be adding anything else but if it improves performance I may, as rocket and yourself suggested, use proxies for some of the static parts. As for detailing your absolutley right, it needs to be traded off against performance, but I wanted to see how far the engine could be pushed in regards to cockpit fidelity. This was mainly an experiment in that area and also to learn the engine at the same time. From testing I can't really find any major performance impact from this plane but that will of course be un-covered, if there is any, during alpha and beta testing phases when others can run it on other systems than mine.

Thanks guys. Well the external view model of the F-117A is actually fairly lowpoly, due to the actual design of the plane itself it's 99.9% hard straight edges apart from a few bits and pieces so externally it actually performs slightly better than the vanilla A-10. Cockpit wise as well although the cockpit is high poly, the design of the aircraft prevents the player from seeing anything else outside of the cockpit (ie wings etc) so the performance ends up being, again, about the same as the original A-10. Here is a quick fps benchmark. "Control" : No models = 71fps "F-117A" : External = 65fps "BIS A-10" : External = 62fps "F-117A" : Internal = 66fps "BIS A-10" : Internal = 66fps The main sheets for the external LOD's are 2x 2048x2048: Internal textures range from 1x 2048x2048 (arm panels L&R for text readability) 2x1024 (MFD displays) and the rest of the gauges and instruments use 512x512 sheets. There are quite a few textures for the internal model but without separated sheets at a high enough resolution there would be no text readability for the gauges. However as shown above, there is really no performance hit from using this method. Ah nice idea, will definitley give that a try, many thanks Rocket.

No problems, the green is just negated by the goggles making them appear as normal: