Johann "onn" Bitsoenn

Allright, folks. Small hint about the big suprise that is coming with T-55 pack: "It's name starts with B and ends with E". Over and out . :]

Even if that is from BF1942, it's a cool lookin pic none the less. Can say the same thing for KoolKid101 though... Its from operation flashpoint isnt it? Yes, it is from Operation Flashpoint :]

It's not fully truth. Constructing 2-seat Ka-52 does not mean, that Kamov wanted to turn down the idea of one-pilot choppers. Actually, it's the cheap Ka-50 (W-80Sz1) is to be the main, basic chopper in this class, while Ka-52 is planned to take only special jobs. Siergiej Michiejev, general constructor of Kamov, demented also all informations that Ka-50 is not capable of taking night-time operations, so additional crewmember is needed... It was in march 1997 in Abu Dabi that Ka-50N (nocnoj) has been announced... It is estimated, that Ka-50 will be enough for 85% of military operations, as the Ka-52 will be needed only for 15% of them... Both Ka-50 and Ka-52 are offered on export. But it is still not clear if russian army will choose Mi-28 or Ka-50/52... Mostly it is said, that... IF it will have funds for choppers, it will choose both of them :]

This is a complete list of built prototypes, no other Mi-28 has been buit... project number - side number - common name - year built - year seen additional informations 280 - 012 - Mi-28 - 1982 - 1989.Tushyno; 1991.Chodynka; eksperimental, no weapon systems, only partiall avionics, 280 - 022 - Mi-28 - 1982 - 1992.Kubinka; weapon testing prototype 286 - 032 - Mi-28A - 1988 - 1989.Paris; serial production template. he has now tree-plate tailrotor, as it's X-tailrotor has been 'borrowed' to 294-014 prototype :] 286 - 042 - Mi-28A - 1991 - 1982.Mosaeroshow; 1993.Paris; 1993.Dubai; same as above 286 - 052 - Mi-28A - 1995 (?) 286 - 062 - Mi-28A - 1995 (?) 286 - 072 - Mi-28A - 1995 (?) three serial helicopters which production has been started on-own-risk by OKB Mil's Experimental Production Factory (Rostov), no information about progress, were planned to be finished in 1995... 294 - 014 - Mi-28N - 1995 - 1995.Zukovski; In 1995 Sweden organised a contest for 20 helicopters for it's army, and tested AH-64 and Mi-28A, but later Sweden resigned from buying it due to lack of funds. Mi-28 was offered for 10mln$, which is approx. 1/3 of american proposition :] While 032, 042 and 014 are operational (probably), 012 and 022 are now probably unoperational and are either reworked by Mil into next prototipes or has been moved to some place like another russian Monino wreckage :P

A pair of HEMMT is being done by Holiday, with a set of humvee's :] Unfortunately, no news from a long time

I managed to run fdf mod by replacing fonts.pbo with correct file from original flashpoint (however, game menu is broken now). one word about mod: AMAZING! :]]]] Well... in few more words... - great number of stuff, tanks, etc, etc... and even more... great textures, sounds... all... - great audio surround (voices, MUSIC!!! well maybe I'm fan of the nordic metal, but the band I heard was not what I personally like - matter of gust - but the other music, symphonic.. absolutely amazed me :]) - and... something that amazed me MOST... damn.... those 2-part undeployable heavy weapons... HUH... it does not only work with your weapons, it works with M2 too... and it works UNBELIVABLY!!!!... aahhh.... that was... so.... so.... wonderfull...... THANX!!!!!!! BTW: one *small* bug there is in heavy-weapon-system. I've placed... ie. DKM's TOW, then system abled me to "Take... M2" :] and... really... after executing, M2 appeared on my back, and the tripod changed.... I thought that it is only temporary due to lack of correct separae models for weapon..... but........ After redeploying weapon it was still M2.... :] And that's it till now :] Thanks once again to all FDF TEAM members for their work!

Hmm... so many good words about the mod... Mine would be too... but... it seems to be few... strange errors there... damnit... they unable me to play with the mod... My ofp is 1.91 PL, working at Matrox G450... a) graphical problem: when I open action menu, huge gray or dark-gold rectangle covers almost whole screen, while action menu seems to be empty and very small. I have tested it both with and without T&L set on... and... still nothing... cannot play anyhow... b) language. Instead of Polish, I se Chech... poor chech (actually, in many of strings I see exactly the "chech" string instead of correct translation... And I do not see any option to change it at least to english ( Anyone could help?

Bout the dirt on choppers... Well... choppers are ussually very clean, same as planes. The reason - massive airblow created during usage. If plane flies fast, air blows off the dust from the plane, if chopper flies, the blow of air from the main rotor blows the dust off from chopper. Now I hope it is more clear for you :]

Lou :] Can somebody post some info on what happened to rhs site? Yesterday I was not able to resolve ofprc.net, today I am able too, but the site... damn... site does not work (php errors) and the forum... heh... the forum has gone back in time to may, 17th... Thanks for any info...

There is one bug I've noticed at screen (have not dloaded it yet): Real MiG-29 has it's front part of cockpit window fixed, and only rear part raises while opening, while in VIT's one... whole cockpit window raises. That's a kind of serious realism bug...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cheeky monkey @ 25 April 2003,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">desn't look very blue, looks brown. GTA VC got it right with Brown Thunder.<span id='postcolor'> Hmm... WHERE is this bird in GTA VC???....... I hope it is not inside the army base on the south of west-island Those damn suckers inside shot me in Maverick with M-16's only ((

Surely it does not look real, BRDM-1 has no shadow, while BRDM-2 has. But it can always be no shadow lod as far as I understand how these things are being made. Anyway, ask the author :]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ April 23 2003,02:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruskiesrule @ April 22 2003,05:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">big gun barrel<span id='postcolor'> And no ashtray.<span id='postcolor'> beware of saying such things. BIS, feared of the fact that it could loss half of the gamers because of no ashtray in T-62 addons (smoking gamers) can ban your account...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Soul_Assassin @ April 22 2003,23:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OR you can wait for both ...seriously guys ur t62 looks great. Do not let us put u off doing it. There is still loads to do for us to release it so while time goes on ill be happy to ride urs around.<span id='postcolor'> I did not wanted to mean that I want one of the teams to abandon their project... I just mean, that it would be really better either to cooperate on it or... abandon one of the project - the less perispective one. Why? As I explained - nobody feels happy having multiple editions of the same addon... and now... we will have at least 2 T-62 packs, 3 MLRS packs, etc... Think about it...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Abrams @ April 22 2003,22:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i have a felling that people arent listing... already told that there is alt bug in the heli its shows alt -1 all the time! as anyone said above there is texture bug with cockpit<span id='postcolor'> It's the ofp issue. To let the jeep and klr to drive inside chopper, it has to have "road" layer. Then, having a "road" layer seriously disturbs height measurment. ---- Something else.... How do I turn my CH47 while being a commander?... I mean... If I want to snipe from the rear ramp, the chopper's ass must be directed at enemy... and... I do not see any good and functional option for a commander to force pilot to turn Can anybody help me, if there is any method for it? Thanks in advance...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (quakergamer @ April 22 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And yes the T62 CAN BE AMPHIBIOUS. Tell me what you see on this picture http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyRec...._32.jpg Isnt it a T62 that is in the water <span id='postcolor'> That picture shows exactly that T-62 is NOT amphibious. And so - it must have some special preparations done (ie. all this long stuff over a turret) to cross the river driving on the bottom of it. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">RSS forum? Anyway, why wait for someone else's tank? I don't quite see the logic of that....<span id='postcolor'> Red Star Studios forum... http://www.ofprc.net/redstar....adid=33 Why to wait? Because it is better when proffessionals are doing some things. :] Proffessional = guy who will surely not make T-62 amphibious :] It is something like a choice... to make an OT-62 for my mod OR to wait till Marfy will finish his one. The other thing that makes it worth to wait - or at least to cooperate in some work - is that it is always better to have one T-62 pack instead of 10, each different. Look at the current situation with M109... we've got one your's, one SwissMod's, one Hawk's and one DKM's. Is it fun for addonusers? I'm shure, that not...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 22 2003,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This Mig-21 is not in Czech camo. That lettering on the nose in this image is a mirrored image, which on the other, proper side reads "217". A google search did not pick up a matching real life color scheme, tho. <span id='postcolor'> Nice... But it's wrong! it is not a mirrored "217", it is a number in arabic alphabette. Which means that it is some arabic camo. Not Chech, true :]

Comments?... 1. Who the f..k made it amphibious? 2. There was a T-62/64 pack mentioned in RSS forum, as a far project, hmm... maybe it would be better idea to wait for them? :]

Apart from above... a) unrealistic cockpit glass b) bad proportions, especcially tailwing c) arnament completely screwed... MiG-21 has no "third pylon" (pair of pylons outside the wing), it has in fact only 4 pylons on wings (2 per wing) d) textures totally unrealistic and of poor quality (textures do not match geometry) Enough for constructive criticism... :]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ April 17 2003,14:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N.o.R.S.u @ April 17 2003,12:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so these new Data3d.pbos increase the addons size by 200 megs . So it's same if you had about 200 megs of extra addons in your addons folder.<span id='postcolor'> Hmm... that shouldnt happen if the install went right. The new PBO's should only be about 2MB larger than the original ones.<span id='postcolor'> Nope. You misuderstood :] The modified files are of course modified by +2MB... but... you need to copy them to new place (/hisky/addons), so now you have 2 sets of theese files with 400MB instead of 200MB, that is +200MB for OFP to load :]

hmm... first of all, batch installer seems not to be compatible with Win98 command shell, in which... a) del '/Q' parameter is illegal b) copy '/Y' parameter should be one of the last parameters so... the installer batch should look like that (for persons having troubles in Win98): </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">@echo off cls echo. If exist newdata\jasno.pac goto ok1 echo Installfiles not found. goto end :ok1 If not exist ..\res\dta\data.pbo echo ERROR data.pbo not found If not exist ..\res\dta\data.pbo goto end If not exist ..\res\dta\data3d.pbo echo ERROR data3d.pbo not found If not exist ..\res\dta\data3d.pbo goto end If not exist ..\res\dta\hwtl\data.pbo echo ERROR hwtl/data.pbo not found If not exist ..\res\dta\hwtl\data.pbo goto end If not exist ..\res\dta\hwtl\data3d.pbo echo ERROR hwtl/data3d.pbo not found If not exist ..\res\dta\hwtl\data3d.pbo goto end echo This will process datafiles as required for high resolution skies. echo None of the original OFP files will be modified. echo. echo Before proceeding, please make sure that you have echo at least 400MB free space on this drive. echo. echo. echo Press any key to continue or ctrl-c to abort. pause >NUL mkdir dta mkdir dta\hwtl mkdir temp del temp\*.* cls echo Processing dta\data.pbo... echo. bin\cpbo.exe -e ..\res\dta\data.pbo temp copy newdata\*.pa? temp /Y bin\cpbo.exe -p temp dta\data.pbo del temp\*.* cls echo Processing dta\hwtl\data.pbo... echo. bin\cpbo.exe -e ..\res\dta\hwtl\data.pbo temp copy newdata\*.pa? temp /Y bin\cpbo.exe -p temp dta\hwtl\data.pbo del temp\*.* cls echo Processing dta\data3d.pbo... echo. bin\cpbo.exe -e ..\res\dta\data3d.pbo temp del temp\obloha.p3d.srpc copy newdata\obloha.p3d temp /Y bin\cpbo.exe -p temp dta\data3d.pbo del temp\*.* cls echo Processing dta\hwtl\data3d.pbo... echo. bin\cpbo.exe -e ..\res\dta\hwtl\data3d.pbo temp del temp\obloha.p3d.srpc copy newdata\obloha.p3d temp /Y bin\cpbo.exe -p temp dta\hwtl\data3d.pbo del temp\*.* cls echo. echo all done. echo You can now run OFP with high resolution skies by using -mod=hisky parameter. :end pause <span id='postcolor'> Secondly... WOW, huhuhu... great! :] Extremely good work! :]

Goddamn... Soul_Assasin... some idea :] Have you seen the randomly assigned numbers on AirwolfPL's Mi-2 Policie? well... even if it would take one month more to the T-55 Pack... just imagin... big number on each tank... each number different... that would rule :}}}

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @ April 10 2003,124)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dear Addon makers, we believe it's time to try to change the way how are the addons distributed if we want them to be more accessible to every user of Operation Flashpoint. In order to achieve this, we want to introduce an initiative "Addons at ease" in near future. We want to adress following issues:<span id='postcolor'> Very good idea, but... 1st, it is strange that it has been introduced so late..., 2nd - it has some problems... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission.<span id='postcolor'> Probably that's the biggest one. While monkey-at-keyboard-type users will benefit a lot from AAE standard, more advanced users will became somehow limited. But... AAE standard with Installer would be somehow acceptable if the Installer file would be able to be accesed by a compression system (as some zip-exe files, autoextr. archives, are accesable without running the exe file). Then, less advanced users will just click the button, while more advanced ones will extract the files and do what is needed to... And from other point of view, the whole idea with installer is just... somehow a crap, because well... If somebody want's to use certain beautiful addon, he WILL do it, at any cost. So - he will learn how to :] It is then better to teach peoples, than to make other people dumb. Important thing is also the linux-problem mentioned before... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Most addons currently come without any mission. We believe any addon for general public should come at least with one simple demo mission.<span id='postcolor'> Absolutely true. Even if the addonmaker itself would not be able to make any mission, he will for shure find someone who will do it happily :] </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3) Many addons and mission require some other addons etc. so it's sometimes very hard to get it all working in the game. Ideally, we would like to see single files containing logical collection of addons and missions and have gamers to get just the single file to play with it in the game (without having to open the mission editor etc.)<span id='postcolor'> I think that the idea will sound better if we describe it somehow like here: 1) No single tank/gun/whatever releases. That complies of course only to some specific addons group - mods. If someone makes i.e. German, Canadian, British, or Whatever mod, it would be really better if he will release a whole pack update once a two months than unlinked addons more often. 2) No using other-people-addonparts in separate releases. Instead - if you made any addon using someone else addon, then it it a modification - and very probably it will be better to release them both in one pack. What would it give? Firstly, the pack itself will then contain more varieties of the same thing (so for example - modifications of the chopper with different loadouts, modification of tanks by differing the turret). Secondly, it will able both addonmakers (original author and modifier) to check each other's work for any mistakes, and for any issues of quality. Then - it will bring us better quality addons. If that description is ok with AAE - I buy it :] </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4) We want the OFPEC TAG system become standard in the addon making community as it seems the only reasonable way how to keep addons compatible.<span id='postcolor'> No point to argue. Absolutely right. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) We consider version 1.90 / 1.91 as the only one supported platform for this initiative.<span id='postcolor'> Right. Unfortunately, these words in your post mean that there is no more patch planned for the game than 1,90/1,91. :'( </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At the end, we would like to advertize selected best quality addons compliant with our initiative at www.flashpoint1985.com which we hope will bring more fun to all of us and more recogntition to you, creators of great new content for the game.<span id='postcolor'> That is one of the most important points. These addons - addons of best quality - will be then on something like "must-have-list", and then - it will be a message for mission makers that they can use these addons freely in their missions. It is as for me the main point of AAE standard... Some more issues for the AAE standard not mentioned in your post are: - no need for extra scripting by final user. He just puts the addon into editor and plays. Of course it shouldn't limit more advanced user to modify or enable some extra functions via the initfield/whatever. - scripts bundled with addon, not in separate script file avaiable in mission folder only. - as mentioned before - weapon needs the guy which carries it. (but that is already an old issue)... - some naming standard needed in custom weapon folders in editor. Let the final user not to be forced to search half an our for the addon. standard sides - to be put under standard sides, other - as required, but... ie. "/West/French - Armoured" instead of "/West/somefrigginname - Armoured". Also, there should be some standarisation in the side's of certain nations, to avoid situation in which some of selected country addons are on East, some on West, and some on Resisstance. One exception is while the country has changed it's place in history map, like middle-eastern countries, which were (and older items should be put) on East side, and now they are (and current weaponry should be put) on West side. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know there's a lot of eventual controversy and issues in this effort. I recommend you to use this thread to general comments to the initiative and tu start new threads if you would like to discuss any specific point into deeper detail.<span id='postcolor'> Thank you for enabling us to comment, Greetings :]

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maruk @ April 10 2003,124)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dear Addon makers, we believe it's time to try to change the way how are the addons distributed if we want them to be more accessible to every user of Operation Flashpoint. In order to achieve this, we want to introduce an initiative "Addons at ease" in near future. We want to adress following issues:<span id='postcolor'> Very good idea, but... 1st, it is strange that it has been introduced so late..., 2nd - it has some problems... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) Convenient, simple and standard install / uninstall of addons/missions for Operation Flashpoint. For this we developed a special utility to creat MSI Windows Installer file to install any Operation Flashpoint addon or mission.<span id='postcolor'> Probably that's the biggest one. While monkey-at-keyboard-type users will benefit a lot from AAE standard, more advanced users will became somehow limited. But... AAE standard with Installer would be somehow acceptable if the Installer file would be able to be accesed by a compression system (as some zip-exe files, autoextr. archives, are accesable without running the exe file). Then, less advanced users will just click the button, while more advanced ones will extract the files and do what is needed to... And from other point of view, the whole idea with installer is just... somehow a crap, because well... If somebody want's to use certain beautiful addon, he WILL do it, at any cost. So - he will learn how to :] It is then better to teach peoples, than to make other people dumb. Important thing is also the linux-problem mentioned before... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2) Most addons currently come without any mission. We believe any addon for general public should come at least with one simple demo mission.<span id='postcolor'> Absolutely true. Even if the addonmaker itself would not be able to make any mission, he will for shure find someone who will do it happily :] </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3) Many addons and mission require some other addons etc. so it's sometimes very hard to get it all working in the game. Ideally, we would like to see single files containing logical collection of addons and missions and have gamers to get just the single file to play with it in the game (without having to open the mission editor etc.)<span id='postcolor'> I think that the idea will sound better if we describe it somehow like here: 1) No single tank/gun/whatever releases. That complies of course only to some specific addons group - mods. If someone makes i.e. German, Canadian, British, or Whatever mod, it would be really better if he will release a whole pack update once a two months than unlinked addons more often. 2) No using other-people-addonparts in separate releases. Instead - if you made any addon using someone else addon, then it it a modification - and very probably it will be better to release them both in one pack. What would it give? Firstly, the pack itself will then contain more varieties of the same thing (so for example - modifications of the chopper with different loadouts, modification of tanks by differing the turret). Secondly, it will able both addonmakers (original author and modifier) to check each other's work for any mistakes, and for any issues of quality. Then - it will bring us better quality addons. If that description is ok with AAE - I buy it :] </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4) We want the OFPEC TAG system become standard in the addon making community as it seems the only reasonable way how to keep addons compatible.<span id='postcolor'> No point to argue. Absolutely right. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5) We consider version 1.90 / 1.91 as the only one supported platform for this initiative.<span id='postcolor'> Right. Unfortunately, these words in your post mean that there is no more patch planned for the game than 1,90/1,91. :'( </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At the end, we would like to advertize selected best quality addons compliant with our initiative at www.flashpoint1985.com which we hope will bring more fun to all of us and more recogntition to you, creators of great new content for the game.<span id='postcolor'> That is one of the most important points. These addons - addons of best quality - will be then on something like "must-have-list", and then - it will be a message for mission makers that they can use these addons freely in their missions. It is as for me the main point of AAE standard... Some more issues for the AAE standard not mentioned in your post are: - no need for extra scripting by final user. He just puts the addon into editor and plays. Of course it shouldn't limit more advanced user to modify or enable some extra functions via the initfield/whatever. - scripts bundled with addon, not in separate script file avaiable in mission folder only. - as mentioned before - weapon needs the guy which carries it. (but that is already an old issue)... - some naming standard needed in custom weapon folders in editor. Let the final user not to be forced to search half an our for the addon. standard sides - to be put under standard sides, other - as required, but... ie. "/West/French - Armoured" instead of "/West/somefrigginname - Armoured". Also, there should be some standarisation in the side's of certain nations, to avoid situation in which some of selected country addons are on East, some on West, and some on Resisstance. One exception is while the country has changed it's place in history map, like middle-eastern countries, which were (and older items should be put) on East side, and now they are (and current weaponry should be put) on West side. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I know there's a lot of eventual controversy and issues in this effort. I recommend you to use this thread to general comments to the initiative and tu start new threads if you would like to discuss any specific point into deeper detail.<span id='postcolor'> Thank you for enabling us to comment, Greetings :]