Taconic

Well, I suppose this provides yet another negative answer to me, so I'll kill any plans to utilize things from the KEG weaponspack. I don't really understand why people aren't coming out and saying "no" when somebody extends them the courtesy of asking if they can use their work rather than simply stealing it, but I digress. According to the readme, FDF Mod uses: Marfy's ZSU-23-2 and MT-LB BW Mod's Leopard Sigma-6's T-72M1 DKMM's TOW RHS' T-55 BAS' MD-500 And assorted other things You also use a number of (nicely) retextured BIS models. I'm not trying to knock FDF Mod or your work, Kegetys, because I'm a fan of both, and I know firsthand how hard it is to create good textures, but this stance seems to be contradictory to your actions. FDF Mod has utilized many thigs that other people made. Why? Because they did not need to be remade or because remaking them from scratch would take too long and ultimately serve no purpose. I don't understand why I'm a "bad guy" for doing the same thing that the FDF team did, especially since I asked permission, just as the FDF team asked various other people. You could also make a new T-55, but you chose not to because RHS' fit the bill perfectly. I felt that the FDF Mod's recoil values were excellent and didn't need improving. One would think that would be regarded as a compliment rather than as something bad.

I have the ECP team's permission to do what I am doing. The "point" of my config is to build upon what the ECP team has already created, not to usurp their position within the community, which is pretty good since I'm a pretty mediocre scripter when compared to Zayfod and the other ECP guys. The ECP team seems to be more interested in altering the core functionality of OFP, which is a great goal and very important work for the game, but what about the actual content of the game? Why let the great things that mod teams have created languish? Why let their work go unused? Why not add a nice coat of shiney paint to the exterior since ECP has certainly cleaned up the interior? That's where I decided to step in. I don't think that the core ECP team has any interest in doing what I'm doing, and since there is a demand for it, the task has to fall to somebody, and that somebody apparently is me. As for it being "pointless," this isn't exactly of small hack to ECP that took me and hour to do and that I'm calling my own. I've added close to 6,000 lines to ECP's base config at this point and invested probably close to 200 hours into the config and assorted scripts. I'm one person, not a team, so there isn't any way that I could reasonably be expected to come up with something as extensive as ECP or FDF Mod on my own. I don't see why this is any reason not to cooperate with somebody else, even if their work is "pointless" and apparently insignifigant in your eyes, but to each his own. I see little point in discussing it further. Your position has been made clear and I respect it.

I see. I thought that you meant that you had come up with your own CfgRecoils class similar to FDF's. While I agree that the BTR-80 sees far too little use (it's an awesome unit,) this would unbalance things quite a bit, so I have no plans to do it. You may be forgetting to define its weapons in CfgWeapons.

Would you mind elaborating on this? How do you change them? I'm looking to come up with more realistic recoil values, but I don't really have the time to sit around and painstakingly test tons and tons of different values if I want to get anything else done. I agree with this sentiment to an extent. However, if they don't want me to use it, I won't use it. It was their work to get there, not mine.

Fair enough. I'll rip that out of my development version right now and revert to the BIS values. I got the idea mostly because I noticed that an FDF Mod team member seemed to be supportive of allowing somebody to adopt the FDF recoil values for their weapons on your forums, but if you don't want me to use them, I'll respect your wishes. This is, of course, the reason that I sought your permission in the first place.

Actually, we do. There's a 13 minute trailer available (you can get it at gamespot, or try to find a torrent to the high quality 300MB version.) The draw of this game isn't the way that it looks or even the gameplay -- it's the atmosphere. The game is creepy as hell, and that's the only reason that I'm interested in it. I suggest that everybody watch the trailer before they pass judgement on it. If I hadn't watched it, I would have regarded it as just another mindless FPS. After watching it, the atmosphere has interested me greatly. BTW, for anybody that watches the trailer... Rewatch it. Pay attention during the elevator scene. You'll notice something right before the power is cut. I have a screen grab of it if anybody wants to know exactly what I'm refering to. This looks like a game that's going to have a good time playing with your head and making you shoot at shadows.

I have no idea when the next release will be. It's about 90% done, but I'm still waiting for permission to include several things, which is holding up any testing or release plans. I emailed Jonno and Marfy a week ago asking for permission to release my 5t pack, but neither of them have replied. I also PMed Kegetys and Blake asking for permission to include some of his old weapons and to be allowed to adapt FDF Mod's recoil values for my config respectively, but neither of them have replied either. If I don't get any answers, I'm going to have to rip out all of this stuff before release, I guess. If any of you know these people and can pass on my requests for permission to them, that would probably speed things up a bit.

That AP article is somewhat misleading... They have a universal pattern, but they're using multiple hues of it. See a picture here. That probably would have been the better scheme to send out with the press releases. Putting a guy in gray and white and sticking him in front of tress while saying, "HEY, LOOK AT OUR NEW CAMO" probably wasn't the best idea. Personally, I don't think that the BDUs that the soldier in the picture that I linked to look that bad. The collar kind of sucks, but that's really all that I'd complain about.

This is most likely because of the block commenets that BIS used. Ex: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">/* TahomaB24 = hfont12; TahomaB36 = hfont16; TahomaB48 = hfont16; CourierNewB64 = hfont16; Garamond64 = hfont16; SteelfishB64 = hfont16; SteelfishB128 = hfont32; AudreysHandB48 = hfont12; AudreysHandI48 = hfont12; */ It's my finding that cpp2bin will give that error if any block comments are present, and the very first line of the commented config is a comment of that type. I'm guessing that's because it checks the file line-by-line while compiling it and doesn't actually try to parse it, so it doesn't "know" that the text contained between the /* and */ is commented. You may also want to look at any include statements - cpp2bin will also generate errors if those are present.

I found a bug today while testing some stuff, so I figured I'd mention it to save anyone else the trouble of reporting it: The V-80 has an option to lower non-existent landing gear and is armed with the BMP-2's 2A42 cannon (bloops.) Both will be fixed, and I'll give it its proper designation while I'm at it (Ka-50.) It took me most of the day, but I finally have a set of "universal" aerial weapon effect scripts implemented. They still require some tweaking, but if it's propelled by a rocket and launched from an aircraft, it has new effects. A rather crappy 99.97KB (I should get a prize for that one) GIF of the Hellfire launch effect (still needs some work. The size and placement of the smoke clouds needs to be tweaked a bit.) Su-25 unleashing a volley of 57mm rockets. I'm also planning on adapting BAS' cool falling brass casing script to the BIS units, but I don't know if I'll get around to it for this version.

Yeah, things like that can cause all manner of problems. I should make a note of it in the readme. Glad you solved it. Yup. That's a known bug. I've even tried extracting what I need from the config with a hex editor, but that didn't work out very well. It's easy enough to change the Black Op's model (I just need to have the class inherit from the soldierwsabatuer class,) but the LaserDesignatorBase class is the problem. I have no idea how it's configured because I can't read the config, so there's no real point of redefining the black op if I can't define the designator... If somebody could get me that, I'd be happy to change both models. I doubt anybody has it, though. You can't use hex to get the values and unpbo 1.3 won't decompile the binary completely.

Looking at the values for the AA missiles, one direct hit should be enough to bring down an Mi-24 (hit = 400, armor = 110.) With that in mind, my hypothesis is that, even when it appears to be a clean hit, the countermeasure scripts are firing RIGHT before the missile hits, thus causing the Hind to be hit with the missile's indiirect damage value -- only 150, which is probably not enough to destroy it, and that would go hand-in-hand with my findings that it took an average of two near misses or "apparent hits" to down one. I'll look into playing with this a bit. I'll probably increase the direct hit damage only slightly, but increase the indirect hit damage and range more meaninfully since a SAM in reality will be pretty devistating even if it detonates several meters away. I haven't seen this behavior, and I can't really think of anything that I've changed that could cause this. The Reflectors class defines where the vehicle lights are, and I've kept the exact same values as the original vehicle for those that I've replaced. I'm not sure what could cause this. I agree. Eventually I'll get around to retooling a lot of the sound volumes since some of them bug me quite a bit. I think that the sound in question is supposed to be the breech being slammed shut. The Russian autoloaders aren't quite as loud with the current settings.

As far as I know, none. I fixed a couple of scripting bugs that popped up in MP in a rather messy fashion in 0.4, but things should work just fine until I can come up with a better solution. I see no reason why the whole thing shouldn't work perfectly if the server and clients are running it. I haven't touched any of the core MP-related ECP scripts, and I can't really think of anything that I've done that would require any sort of additional scripting changes to support.

I'm not sure. I haven't actually looked at the Mi-28's dust script, but it's possible that it is similar to Vektorbosen's. As I recall, he was the first one to release a heli dust script to the community. I've accomplished a bit today. The bug causing the missing whiz-by effects is fixed. The fix will be in 0.4.1. I had almost forgotten how much they added to the mood. I also recieved permission to adapt BAS' MH-60 weapon effect scripts to work on various vehicles in my config, so I've been working on implementing that this morning. That was almost impossible to cut down to 100K. I had to crop it insanely, reduce the color depth to 58, and cut out about 30 frames, but that shows the smoke effect after firing a volley of rockets in action on the Hind. I'm not sure if this will make it into 0.4.1 or not. I'm trying to create an all purpose version of the script, so it'll take a bit of expirimenting (especially since I haven't done any real scripting in about a year.) If it doesn't make it into 0.4.1, it will be in the following release.

It was a resistance mission in which the resistance had no access to airfields, so a lack of fuel had nothing to do with it. Using a helicopter also wasn't an option since the entire point of the mission was to use a fixed wing aircraft (Skyraider.) There just wasn't any real place on the island that could function as a believable makeshift airfield. It isn't uncommon in the modern world for stretches of highway to be designed with the ability to serve as airstrips -- several of the Nordic countries do this, presumably so they wouldn't have to rely solely on established airfields in times of conflict.

That looks cool. Is the road flat? I was working on a Resistance campaign on Nogova for a while and couldn't find a straight strip of road long enough to function as a makeshift airstrip, but something like that would do nicely.

If everything is properly installed, there's no reason why it shouldn't work. I play the 1985 campaign every once in a while with this config. So do my testers and some of the posters in this thread, so the issue shouldn't be the config itself. I can't really give you any real suggestions about what course of action to take without more detail about the problem. My initial one would be to double-check that everything is installed where it should be. Beyond that, I would make sure that you don't have some things installed twice (I.E., Delta/Ranger 1.50 in one addon directory and Delta/Ranger 1.0 in Res\Addons.) Things of that nature can cause all kinds of fun problems.

I'm hoping to get some preliminary testing started this weekend, but I'm not sure if that's going to happen since I've gotten practically no work done on it in the past two days and I probably won't manage to get a lot done tomorrow. I'm not sure when the public release will be. I'm aiming to have things wrapped up by the 18th, but I'm not 100% sure that I'll make it. I depends largely on how quickly people give me permission to include a few things (if at all - if they don't, I guess I'll have to strip them out before the public release.)

That's one thing I've been very careful about all through this project. I've gone out of my way to avoid stepping on anybody's toes, and I've always asked for permission before I've modified anything. I know how much work that people put into their projects, and it's 100% understandable why they wouldn't want some outsider coming along and messing with their work. I don't want my project, which was originally intended to give modders' work the amount of use that it deserved, to be like a kick in the face to them. I've established dialogues with a lot of people for this: The ECP guys, RHS (RHS was actually very receptive to this project,) raedor, Rudedog, Maa, and others. I'm currently trying to establish a dialogue with the WGL and DKM guys so that I can incorporate a few things from their camps, and I'm waiting to get permission from Kegetys to incorporate something of his. I also have my 5 ton truck pack that I'm in the process of trying to get cleared for release: Lee H. Oswald has already given me permission to use his desert pack as a base, but I'm still waiting for permission from Marfy (textures) and Jonno (original 5t pack) before I release it. If somebody doesn't want to let me use their work, I don't use it out of respect for the time that they invested in it. So, yeah. I make an effort to go through the proper channels and to clear things up with the original modders before I do anything. And as far as I know, nobody is pissed off at me since I make that effort.

I'm definetely looking forward to it. Zayfod has also been a big help to me. I never really realized how complex ECP was until I started digging through it, but he's cleared things up for me on several occasions.

Pappy Boyington's config is actually based upon mine. He PMed me shortly after my first public release of EECP and asked if I minded if he made some changes to it. I didn't mind, so that's what he did. The rest is history, I guess. Beyond that, we seem to have two different design philosophies and different ideas about what a project like this should ultimately ammount to. There aren't any plans to collaberate. Also, he has said that his next release will be his last, while I plan on continuing to update this for quite some time.

That's good news. On both counts. I have some other questions, though... mostly because I've recently been on a real BAS kick (I finally got around to finishing Insurgency last weekend. I've been meaning to do that for months.) Before I ask them, though, I want to clarify that I'm not demanding a release date or anything like that -- I've been modding OFP for very close the three years now, and while I've only released one thing publically (and certainly nothing of BAS quality,) I'm fully cognizant of the realities of modding and why things take so long. In other words, don't take this as me saying, "HAY BAS WHAT IS TAKING U SO LONG R U GUYS DED U SUCK MY FREND MADE MH-6S IN 2 DAYS & THEY HAD FAST ROPE SCRIPTS AND THEY COULD DO LOOPS AND TURN INTO MECHS!!!" I'm just a BAS fan that's curious about the status of the things that he's looking forward to. Anyway... 1: Is the second part of the Insurgency campaign still a go? Can we expect it sometime in the near future? I really enjoyed the first part. It was hard as hell, and after the farm mission (which was a fitting climax, BTW) I was dissapointed to see it end. 2: Is an update of Tonal still planned as mentioned in the readme? I realize what a massive undertaking this is, and I ask this really only because I ran into a whole bunch of those invisible walls in the Zinaba mission. Those "walls" are the only flaws with Tonal IMO. 3: Has the status of the woodland/desert packs changed at all in light of the recent release of Rudedog's Bradlies and the Mcar beta and the upcoming releases of the woodland HMMWVs and the Combat Mod M113s? 4: You guys mentioned that you were using Suchey & Earl's weapons as a base for your updated ones in Delta/Ranger 2.0 (which, BTW, I think is very cool of you to do - it's a wheel that doesn't need to be reinvented at this point, and you guys seem to have no problem accepting that.) I assume that means that the M4s will get full overhauls, but will the M14, M24, MP5, etc., also get an overhaul?

I'll be doing this more often now. I've given the main config a major overhaul while working on v0.4.1 expressly for this purpose. It should be much easier for people not extremely familiar with it (I.E. anybody that isn't me) to quickly find things now. I would ideally like to incorporate a feature like this in a way that would allow it to be toggled on and off through a menu. Some people really like it. Others hate it. It's definetely something that I'll start looking into, but it won't make it into 0.4.1.

Yes... ...and no. In CfgTextureToMaterial, you define classes filled with the paths to various textures. In CfgMaterials, you create classes that determine how lighting is applied to classes in CfgTextureToMaterial. This means that you could apply this type of effect to every BIS and third party object ever made, but that you'd need to manually input paths to the textures in question, which would be incredibly time consuming. Lupus has about 2,000 lines worth of stuff in his classes already. He has taken care of hundreds of units ranging from the default BIS stuff to SEB Nam to Operation Frenchpoint. Most of the major units are taken care of already, but there are still a few for me to do. So I suppose the most practical answer to your question is "mostly."

I don't think that placebo will get angry if I answer with pictures I took these back in February when I was on a Vietnam kick (using Ilo-ilo and Footmunch's F-4) I really like that last one... I just wish I had my view distance set higher when I took it. (to answer your question, all ECP effects (blood, fires, shock dust, the editor, etc) are incorporated into EECP, but you need to install the regular ECP before installing EECP if you want everything to work properly. If you don't install ECP first, you'll be missing those scipts when you use EECP.)