HellToupee

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Feb. 01 2003,11:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @ Jan. 31 2003,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 31 2003,23:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq isn't aloud to have these weapons. At all. Period. Not only by UN resolution but by the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical/Biological Weapons Treaty. So whether they use them in defense or offense is irrelevant. They are not aloud to have them at ALL.<span id='postcolor'> Who decides who is allowed to have WMD or not? The UN Security Council, not America and its British poodle lapdog Blair. The permament members of the Security Council are made up of nations that all possess WMD, its a requirement to get in! The Council has not voted for this war and until it does, a US attack would be illegal under international law. Even the Vatican opposes this war, and I doubt they're Islamic sympathizers. I guess I could even mention that Norman Schwarzkopf (you know what that is, right?! opposes the war. And no, I'm not anti-war, I just think attacking Iraq is foolish, wasteful of both human lives and economic resources, and counterproductive in the long run. Saddam will be replaced by civil war and mass homelessness, an atmosphere in which Al Qaeda (and who knows what else at this point) thrives.<span id='postcolor'> First off I oppose the war as well so you don't need to preach to me *insert rolling eyes* And the Non-Proliferation Act and Chemical/Biological Treaty WAS made by the UN if you will check information before posting. Also if you will check the NPT states that only the original nuclear powers are to have them and this treaty has been signed by over 187 countries. Same goes for the C/BT.<span id='postcolor'> if u can makea treaty like that y dont they make a treaty where no one can have nukes, the fewer the better, iraq is not even close to the top of the list for dangrous countries with nukes, hell north korea has admitted to having them when they arnt allowed yet no one thing in the news about it,

the twist rudder is essiential i dont know how i managed in il2 or ofp without one.

still tho it would be ofp verson 2

havnt seen anybody that stands out, most of times sum one gets me its from a guy sittin in a bush with his gun trained on a flag or sumthing

it was great tho df2, substandard graphics almost no animation 100% accurate weapons apart from bullet drop, but it had massive mp and no lag for modemers playin from over seas, koth and A&D games were great fun, offline and coops it was terrible.

i fly choppers key board and joystick and use mouse for aiming the v80s gun(wish it would be auto tracking in the verticle axis), for planes i use stick and throttle, its alot fun dog fighting planes online at tree top level as he makes darning moves close to trees and buildings.

those gunfighters have always been good at maps their maps for i82 were the best, sorta drifted from that community, man interstate had so much potential y couldnt they make a decent sequel, sum one shoulda started a interstate mod for ofp jus need rockets on cars.

u will find in a team vs team no respawn obj based mission most of the time it will end up being a death match where the last guys alive do the objective, respawn is like reinforcements, TO/CS and similar has an objective 2 teams and no respawn, which is why no one dose the objective, rtcw has an objective and timed respawns every one trys for teh objective because its teh only way to win.

about the realistic aspect, people are attack his ideas as unrealistic like 2 bases, time acc etc, these are just map features to make a fun game they are no more or less realistic than what we currently play other than coops, the realism is in the one shot kill cant hit stuff when running etc that is the realism part. In ofp 2 or upgrade to 1 i would like to see some intergration of a rts like multiplayer for large amounts of people with JIP and a chain of command with commanders getting the approate interface for controling groups. If you have played allergence now free used to be a microsoft pay to play game that is the sort of style i am talking about. Maybee take away the factory building concept and replace it with a factory controlling one where u have to capture them airfields etc or something similar. Online shouldnt be about captureing a silly flag and holding it it should be a side vs side battle to elimate the other. My fav game type is rts and cti, no one every seems to play these locally and they show ofps need for jip if it is to reach the larger scale. As for SP well thats ofps strong point probly 99% of people who bought ofp play sp not mp so dont go neglecting it.

useally sum draw backs, with a wider view u cant see as far clearly but can see more, with narrow fov in games u can see further but not as much, games that do have user defined fov can be exploited.

he has modeled auto rotation u hold z when u turn off ur engine and u can keep the rotor spinnin as u fall and land it, its great when ur engine takes a hit.

ild like to see soldiers float

i tried to connect to stoners once a few people had sounds almost all had faces and xmls, well once i connected about with 24 ppl on the server my tmp folder was around 6 megs.

would be nice to have the v80 and the hind updated to use retactable landing gear, and have it so weels can go around same for planes, would be cool to have proper landing gear for the planes with the detail of a flight sim(On the plane).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wonder @ Jan. 22 2003,17:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'll be damned if this thing will be better than DKM's newly-released Comanche <span id='postcolor'> the model looks better

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,17:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The media isnt' controlled by the government. One of our freedoms is freedom of the press, they can say whatever they want within reason, and they do.<span id='postcolor'> really if u knew they was controlled by government u wouldnt belive them, the trick is to make ppl belive it is free from bias.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 22 2003,16:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 22 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so u belive what they show on the news, as if they are gona show things that dont support what the country is doing on the news.<span id='postcolor'> We have a little thing called freedom of speech here. Media outlets are not punished for criticizing government policy or government figures (anyone remember Clinton's BJ-Gate?). Since news has become a form of entertainment, the audience wants a little controversy with their news. To that effect, news reporting has started to morph into news analysis, and now everyone and their dogs have an opinion on politics and policy. Any bias you see in American media is strictly due to the news outlets catering to their respective audiences (Fox to conservatives, CNN to people who want to say that they watch the news but don't actually want to hear any real news, etc etc), not because of some overarching media-control scheme set up by the US government.<span id='postcolor'> tex dont u get it, you can have all the freedom of speece u want but thats not gona stop propaganda

US dose what it suits them, they help iraq if it helps them, they attack iraq if it helps them, same for afganstan, attack north korea dose not help them because they are capable of putting up a fight.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 22 2003,14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How do you know. Have you spoken with any Iraqis about this, like I have? Or are you just making this up as you go along?<span id='postcolor'> Some defected Iraqis get hounded by the media about what happened in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'> so u belive what they show on the news, as if they are gona show things that dont support what the country is doing on the news.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ Jan. 22 2003,12:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And when I ram people with helicopters I get kicked... its like I committed a crime. I still get TK'ed more than people should anyway <span id='postcolor'> happened to me once, i rammed a m1a1 with my helecopter after bailing to saftey, i got kiked, i also use helecopters to drop them on a nme occupided town, and campers get nailed in the blast. Also apparntly destroying a bridge to cut off enemy access with tanks is also a crime u get kiked for it kinda stupid

west is just lucky gun jam isnt modeled

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bronski @ Jan. 22 2003,07:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">People were saying that the gun was overpowered but it tooke me 7 seconds to knock out a T80 and 14 seconds to take out an m1a1. Both standard BIS models. Do consider that i was in autohover and completely still when i did this. The armor value on custom models may be different. That may be why it is tearing them apart. I think this helicopter needs cup holders, the pilot and gunner have to have somewhere to set their beers. <span id='postcolor'> for a 20mm cannon against a tank yes it dose seem a bit over powered, ww2 fighters had 20mm cannons.

there is a way to get rid of every WMD, first u make them illegal, then u take every one of them out of the missle silos destroy them and put the radio active bits in a bunker for teh nxt 10,000 years, the US pulled out of the treaty to reduce nuke weapon stock piles, it was held in south africa, nothing good can come of having nuke weapons to use them is to destroy us all, the US tried to black mail my country into letting them put nuclear ships in our waters or no free trade.

y should anyone have them

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.CNUTZ @ Jan. 21 2003,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 20 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 21 2003,17:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Jan. 21 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and y so worried about WMDs there has only been one country to use them, and they were used against a civilian population 2 times in a row against a nation that was pretty much already defeated, a nuke attack on the US would show them Nukes dont save lives like they are told.<span id='postcolor'> We've already dealt with that exstensively. Also I pointed out that Germany and England used what are refered to as WMDs in WW1, Mustard Gas in that case.<span id='postcolor'> i dont believe mustard gas was used to destroy cities, if iraq is invaded by the US and they strike the US with nukes to "save" their troops lives thats the same excuses they use for US attacking the jap cities 2 times. Fact is US is only country with a bad record with nuke weapons<span id='postcolor'> WMD=Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons, not just nukes. I would also say that a chemical or biological agent used correctly could desimate a city's population and not destroy a single building, or is it just the building destruction that counts? <span id='postcolor'> all WMDs should be outlawed in everysingle country, chemical weapons have the ability to wipe out everyone, who knows how long and far teh agent can travel. Fact is the USA has more WMD than anybody else, y do they have the right to stop other countries using them, they showed in ww2 wat they do, they are only effective agaisnt civilian populations so y have thousands of them and y continue to build them.