Taconic

Shadow NX is in the process of emailing me what I need. If I get it today, I'll try to have the next version out either today or tomorrow. This has taken longer than I had intended. Sorry to anyone that has been waiting.

They can go in either. It doesn't matter as long as -mod=(foldernamecontainingaddons) is appended to the OFP shortcut if the required addons aren't in the base OFP addon directory. You're the first person to report problems like this, so I don't think it's the config alone. What are the errors specifically? Give them to me and I'll look into it.

I can't wait for that. The Ka-60 is the one chopper that I've wanted to see most in OFP, yet nobody has made one. It's about the most attractive looking chopper around. I'm really glad to hear that one is finally being made.

How is BAS' stuff incompatible with ECP? That's definetely a good way to do it if you want to switch back to normal ECP for multiplayer. Maybe I'll update the instructions to include that.

I'm still waiting on a few people. I'm talking to Shadow NX about RHS' configs. Hopefully this will be resolved within a few days. When it is, expect a release. Shadow NX has also given me permission to fully incorporate all of RHS' future releases, which was nice of him. I plan to take advantage of that in the future. I'm also waiting on Sigma-6 for some information regarding his Russian armor. I'm not sure when I'll get it, but if I don't get it before the next release is ready, I'll just add it to a future one rather than hold up the current one.

A resounding yes to all of the above. Those addons are useless if nobody makes use of them. Look at the popularity of winter Nogojev and Tonal -- those islands are exponentially larger than yours will be in file size even if you do include the Mapfact and AGS statics, yet that hasn't stopped people from using them. If anything, sticking to the stock BIS stuff will hurt its popularity. The terrain looks good, given, but, and I mean no offense when I say this, it brings nothing new to the table. We have a million other islands out already that have nice terrain, yet get no use because they offer nothing new. Look at Kodiak, for example. That's a great island, but I have yet to see a single mission for it. However, I bet that would be a different story if it had some "personality" infused into it by utilizing things other than the BIS buildings that we've all seen a thousand times over the past three years. I can only think of one island that uses the Mapfact stuff and two that use AGS stuff. And that's a damned shame.

There's no reason why there should be any missing sounds. I double-checked, and everything is in order, so all that I can really suggest is: 1: Make sure that Dynamic Range is installed 2: Make sure that you're using original, unmodified addon PBOs Whatever the problem is, it shouldn't be a bug with the config. Also, I haven't made any changes to the SVD at all. Are you sure that you aren't confusing my config with someone else's? Anyway, the next release will be postponed for a little longer. I talked to several addon makers yesterday and now hope to include a lot more in the next revision, but I'm waiting on a few things before I implement the changes. Hopefully everything will be in order by the end of the week. I think the wait will be worth it.

While I got a little side-tracked by working on some projects for Il-2, the next revision is almost ready to go. Would anybody like to volunteer to test it before I do a general release? I'd like to ensure that what I release is as bug-free as possible since I can't test everything in every mission myself. If anybody is interested, PM me. I only need a few people.

The M1's config data is within the main config.bin. Grab an unbinarized version if you want to work with it.

I think that the debate about this is kind of ridiculous. Having children in OFP will cater to sickos making "child hunt" missions? How is this any worse than "woman hunt" missions? Or "slaughter all of the civilians" missions? Beyond that, why does it matter? If somebody wants to do something like that (and I'm sure they will,) you don't have to download it. Who is to say that the people that wish to do things like that haven't already done it and kept the addon private? How would that affect any of you? Having a third party child addon will suddenly make the media villify OFP and will magically make the mentally ill begin to use OFP to plot school shootings? Well, why wasn't Fallout villified by the media? In Fallout, you could choose to murder children if you wished. Doing so would leave you branded a child killer for the rest of the game, but the option was there. It actually added a lot to firefights since you actually had to consider collateral damage when in towns. Once I accidently caught a kid that I hadn't seen on a side street with a frag grenade and legitimately felt bad about it. As for school shootings, why is replacing a model with a child one going to suddenly make people use OFP to plan school shootings (which are such rare occurances that it's really rather silly to even bring them up?) Why can't people use OFP as it is to do this? Hey, we'd better remove JAM and the FDF mod from download because they feature more realistic recoil values than stock OFP, and somebody might use these mods to learn how to shoot people with these rifles! Where do we draw the line? Where do we stop censoring ourselves because a tiny minority is insane? Censorship won't change that fact. You guys are trying to draw a line where there shouldn't be one. War is wrong. It's a terrible construct that has resulted in the death of millions throughout human history. People have died many torturous and violent deaths through war. War is responsible for most of the greatest attrocities to ever take place. In spite of that, none of you decrying this idea have any problem playing a game like OFP, which serves only to glamorize war. You can't get hurt playing in OFP. You can't die in OFP. You can't see your friends die in OFP. You can't watch cities burn to the ground, ruining the lives of thousands in OFP. You can't be tortured as a POW in OFP. You can't cower in a foxhole, holding a friend's severed arm in your lap, as you try to survive yet another artillerly barrage in OFP. What you get in OFP is a sanitized view of war. Sure, it's more realistic than most other depictions, but it does little to convey the true nature of war -- if it did (and if it were actually possible,) nobody would want to play it. Anyway, my point is that it's rather silly to draw a line here, especially when nobody has problems with things like nuclear weapon addons. What, should we be against those because somebody might cram a hundred civilians into Petrovich and drop a bomb? What about CoC artillery? What's to stop people from filling Montignac with women and then having 8 M109 batteries open up on it? What if the media sees this? "Misogynist computer game promots mass murder!" I, for one, have no problem with this. It would add atmosphere. I find it absolutely absurd that deveopers like BIS (and countless others) cannot add children to their games out of the fear that a few disturbed individuals might try to "hurt" a bunch of polygons, textures, and code. I also have little doubt that somebody would abuse this. Why? Because somebody has undoubtably already abused every other OFP addon ever created. Nobody complains because somehow depicting the massacre of unarmed civilians in a video game is somehow more socially acceptable than depicting that children are mortal.

I plan on updating the resistance units in some way in the future. Probably not in the next release, though.

You can clearly see the smoke launchers on most of the BIS models, but they're non-functional. Just about every tank ever made has been able to lay down a smoke screen. This isn't a modern idea. The T-55 doesn't have smoke launchers, but it can inject fuel into its exhaust, which accomplished the same thing, albeit slightly more slowly and with a bit less coverage when compared to tanks with launchers. The same goes for the BMP. I know that BAS' smoke grenades are actually less demanding than the BIS ones, so I doubt that will be a problem. And the reason that I said "in certain circumstances" above was to avoid the type of scenario that you described - it would be stupid if the AI popped smoke every time it saw an enemy and nothing would ever get done, so I don't think that ECP would make it happen that way if they were to try to implement this idea.I like the idea for two reasons. 1: IFVs are sitting ducks. They can be taken out completely by any AT weapon in OFP. I've seen many instances of them stopping, disembarking the soldiers they're carrying, and then being destroyed before the third guy is out. If they were able to deploy smoke when doing this in a hot zone (or when coming under heavy fire in one,) they wouldn't be so helpless. 2: Realism. Just about every armored vehicle can deploy smoke. I can see two problems with the idea, though. 1: The lack of IR optics in OFP ensures that a smoke screen would be as effective against an M1 as it would be against a resistance guy carrying around an RPG launcher. 2: The fact that if the enemies can't see you, your gunner won't be able to see them. I'm also not really sure how the driver would react. As I recall, you need to create a transparent wall in order for the AI to be "blinded," so I don't know if it's possible to make the driver drive through the screen or anything. I think that the positives outweigh the negatives, though. And it could be made an option, just like almost everything else in ECP so that if somebody didn't want to use it, they don't have to.

I've actually already done that, but I'm taking a break for a day or two since I put about 16 hours into the config on Monday and Tuesday. v0.3 should be out within a week in both Dynamic Range and normal ECP versions.Current list of changes for v0.3 That's all that I have added so far, but there will be more added before I release it, so don't consider it a full list.The UH-60 retains all of BAS' scripting except stuff relating to insertion/extraction. My testing showed that this had the potential to "break" missions that were made without this functionality in mind, so I thought it best to disable it for compatability's sake. I've also talked to Sigma-6 and he is going to share his Russian weapon and armor values with me, so that will either make it into 0.3 or a future release.

While I've done absolutely no testing as far as MP goes because this was intended for SP use, I'd say that this is probably because I've made many changes to things over the stock ECP config. Stock ECP really doesn't deviate from BIS values for units and weaponry. I do.Think about it. The M16 in my config, for example, is completely different than the M16 in the standard OFP or ECP configs. It goes beyond just the sound and model and includes recoil, ballistics, how quickly the AI is able to fire it, and so on. The values in my config deviate greatly from the config running on the server and other clients, so I'm not surprised that you'd have problems. The number of fundimental changes like this will continue to grow as time goes on (I've already merged Sigma-6's US armor and tank weaponry data with the 0.3 config,) so this isn't likely to change. I would imagine that everything would work just fine if the server and all clients were running identical E-ECP configs. If anybody wants to set up a server to test this, be my guest.

They aren't dead (I just checked.) Sometimes you just need to try the links a few times because they have some ongoing server difficulties at ofp.info. If you still need a mirror, you should be able to find the T-80 pack at http://www.operationnorthstar.com/ since that's where they were originally from. I don't know of another place to get Marfy's 5t. This is also a good site to check if you're looking for something specific (although some of the links are broken.)

No problem. I'm glad somebody's getting use out of it. Oh, and I forgot to mention a few posts ago that the next release (0.3) should have a non-Dynamic Range config available as well.

v0.2.9.9 released Get it here. Fast update, I know, but after looking at the config this morning, I realized that two of the bugs were caused by stupid mistakes and the third could be fixed easily. Since it will probably be a little while before I released another update (I plan on adding a lot,) I wanted to get the bug-free version out for the meantime.

I've been working on this lately and have recently run up against a few walls. #1: Is there any way to change a magazine picture without creating a new magazine class? Changing the picture in the weapon class changes both the weapon and mag pictures to the same thing. Because of the nature of the project, I can't exactly create a new magazine class to use as ammo since that would break compatability. #2: Can somebody offer me a brief explaination of the following since none of these things were explained in the commented BIS config. <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">#define TracerEColor 0.2,0.8,0.1 #define TracerWColor 0.8,0.5,0.1 #define TracerGColor 0.7,0.7,0.5 #define TracerNColor 0,0,0 // used for sniper / silenced rifles #define TracerEColorF {TracerEColor,0.040} #define TracerWColorF {TracerWColor,0.040} #define TracerGColorF {TracerGColor,0.040} #define TracerNColorF {TracerNColor,0.005} #define TracerSEColorF {TracerEColor,0.25} #define TracerSWColorF {TracerWColor,0.25} #define TRACER_W_ALWAYS tracerColor[]=TracerWColorF;tracerColorR[]=TracerWColorF #define TRACER_W_OPTIONAL tracerColor[]=TracerWColorF;tracerColorR[]=TracerNColorF #define TRACER_W_STRONG tracerColor[]=TracerSWColorF;tracerColorR[]=TracerSWColorF #define TRACER_E_ALWAYS tracerColor[]=TracerEColorF;tracerColorR[]=TracerEColorF #define TRACER_E_OPTIONAL tracerColor[]=TracerEColorF;tracerColorR[]=TracerNColorF #define TRACER_E_STRONG tracerColor[]=TracerSEColorF;tracerColorR[]=TracerSEColorF #define TRACER_G_ALWAYS tracerColor[]=TracerGColorF;tracerColorR[]=TracerGColorF #define TRACER_G_OPTIONAL tracerColor[]=TracerGColorF;tracerColorR[]=TracerNColorF I know that the number represents RGB/Alpha on a 0-1 decimal scale, but what is, for example, TracerWColorF? What does {TracerWColor,0.040} do? Is it adding 0.040? To what, R, G, B, or the alpha? That's the kind of thing that I'd like explained. Thanks for any input.

Hmm. Found a new bug: There seems to be a clipping problem in the commander view of the T-80. It's difficult to see through the scope and sometimes it won't move. I guess I'll have to figure that out while I retool the armor.

Because I'm trying to keep required downloads to a minimum since not everybody can afford to keep 500MB worth of addon PBOs loaded at all times. I'm being careful about what I select to replace things in order to get the most out of every addon pack.

v0.2.9 released Get it here. Updates: Models: M21 -> BAS M24SWS M60 -> S&E M249 Realism: PK and M249 ammo counts changed to 200 rounds to better reflect the usage of box magazines Burst fire mode removed from AK-47 Burst fire mode removed from AK-47CZ US sniper now uses 5 round magazines to reflect weapon change. Gameplay: M16 now matches Suchey & Earl's config. Uses S&E sound. M4 now matches Suchey & Earl's config. Uses S&E sound. AK-74 now matches Suchey & Earl's config. Uses S&E sound. AKS-74U now matches Suchey & Earl's config. Uses S&E sound. M-24 matches BAS' config. Uses BAS' sound. Misc: Suchey and Earl's ammo classes added to class CfgAmmo. They now replace the default ammo classes in the weapons using their models. XM-177E2, M60, M21, M16, AK74 all renamed to reflect model changes. Known bugs: Mags for the M24 are invisible in the inventory US sniper doesn't have enough weapon slots, but carries 10 magazines They don't have any effect on gameplay, but they'll be addressed. Immediate plans for future versions: Replace UH-60 with BAS' Replace PK and SVD models (TBD) Replace AT weapons with BAS' and S&E's Bring Sigma-6's realistic values for armor and tank rounds into the default config Feel free to post any input.

What is the tracerColorR value specifically for?

Not quite what I'm looking for, but thanks anyway. I have no aversion to leaving them in standard BDUs, which is probably what I'll do unless I spot a ghillie suit that I really like. Heh. That's the same explaination that I just sent you a minute ago.

I see. Well, I PMed you about it. I don't know if I'll be much help, though. Anyway, at the moment I'm curretly looking for suggestions on the replacement of the following: Russian and US MANPADS Snipers (are there any good ghillie suits out there?) Aforementioned helis (Mi-17, Mi-24, CH-47D, AH-64, AH-1) Ural Work on the config is progressing smoothly. I should have an improved version ready for release before too long.

I have a suggestion for the ECP guys... Smoke screens for tanks. It would be cool if they actually popped smoke canisters and laid down a screen that the AI couldn't see through. It's a major aspect of armored combat that's conspiculously missing from OFP. Ideally the commander should be able to choose to pop smoke a set number of times from the action menu and the AI would automatically deploy it in certain circumstances. Feasible?