Taconic

Patience, grasshopper. Rest assured that I've been working hard on it. I'm still waiting for Maa to get everything worked out, so that is the biggest hold up at the moment. In the meantime I am getting everything else straightened up and polished so that as soon as Maa comes through, I can get the next version out quickly. I don't think that anybody will be dissapointed. This has turned into the largest update yet, and there will be a couple of surprises in it that I haven't mentioned yet. Since I haven't been very accurate at forcasting release dates in the past, take this with a grain of salt, but I would say that I should have it released "sometime this week." Once I get the CSLA stuff sorted out, there isn't much else to do other than tie up loose ends and test it all out.

I see the lines as well, but they're faint and aren't present in all frames. There are two or three frames where the tiles are seamless, so it isn't a problem with all of them.

I see. Thank you. I was going to shoot you a PM today about it, actually. This saves me the trouble. Things are about 95% done at this point barring the CSLA stuff. Once I get everything worked out with Maa, I should have a release ready in a day or two.

I've had the Bradley in for a few days already. I still need to fix a problem with the Bushmaster class and get the random number script working, though. I haven't really taken a good look at the scripts yet, but I'd imagine that they work the same way as RHS' scripts, which means I'll have to have to modify things to make them work properly, so I'll have to get in contact with Rudedog and get his permission before I can do anything with that.

Wow. That's a very nice offer. It's something I didn't even bother asking because I didn't think anybody would be receptive to it. I'm definetely interested. I'll drop you a PM.

Thanks for the compliment. I'll change the link when I release my next update. Speaking of which, it's nearly done. I took a break for a couple of days because I was spending far too much time on it, but now it only requires me to devote 3 or 4 hours to finish up. I basically started from scratch in order to fix a number of small problems that were bothering me (and probably only me.) This also means that everything is very clearly commented in the config, so it isn't a two hour job to hunt things down for use in a non-dynamic range version, which I've been promising to get out for a while. Barring any unforseen problems, I should have it finished and tested within a week.

Actually, it was CGW, not EGM. Look familiar? http://www.computergaming.com/slideshow2/0,2096,a=98918,00.asp

"Special Forces" are "Special Forces," also known as Green Berets. Strictly speaking, there are no other special forces, but the term has come to mean "any highly trained and well-equipped unconventional fighting force" in most peoples' minds. There are specialized forces or unconventional forces, but there is only one Special Forces.The Rangers are highly trained and highly mobile infantry. They are a conventional fighting force, not something like the SEALs or the Special Forces. They're essentially shock troopers.

These are not real. I don't know what the first one is from, but I can confirm for a fact that the second one (with the grenade) is a picture taken from the next Medal of Honor game. That exact same picture was prinited in EGM a couple of months ago with the color of the grenade pointed out in a MoH preview. This is a hoax.

I just received permission from raedor to modify his scripts, so in the next release all of the T-54 scripts, including the random number script, will be working. I've also spent some time this afternoon adding something very nice to the config. Let's just say that it rymes with "sadly." There should also be an update available fairly soon. I was planning to hold off until RHS released their infantry pack, but I'm making enough changes to warrent a new release before that.

I just gave them a try. I'm very impressed. Beautiful modeling job, great textures (I really appreciate good textures since I've sunk ungodly amounts of time into doing texture work and have complete mediocrity to show for it,) great effects. One thing that I noticed is that they seem to use their TOWs more often than the BIS M2. I was hearing ATGMs firing every time enemy armor came up. They were quite effective and actually didn't get destroyed in ten seconds like the BIS M2s. I might actually feel safe riding in an APC in OFP for once. Great work.

Looking good, Rudedog. I've been following these for a while. I hope you'll let me add them to my replacment config. Do you guys have any plans for an M113A3? I'm just wondering since you already have a base model to work with from the ambulance.

Thank you. Yes, the BMP is something that I've given some thought to. I have permission from MAA to use CSLA's units if I wish, but I'm a bit wary of doing that because of the size of the download and their armor PBO. I know that I could just rip the models that I want and copy the config, but I don't find that to be terribly ethical (IMO. I wouldn't want somebody doing that to my work.)As it stands, I'm waiting to see what happens with the Caucasus Crisis BMPs. From what I understand, ORCS may be releasing them. If that's the case, I'd rather make use of those since they'd be a small and self-contained download. As for the VITAPC BMP-3, I've considered using it to replace the BMP-1, but I haven't really done anything since the only BMP-2 I could use is the CSLA one, and we get back to the problem of size again with that. If we don't get both a BMP-1 and 2 from the Caucasus Crisis' work, then I'll probably use whatever we do get and the BMP-3. By the way, currently I'm working on fixing the longest-standing bug in the config - incorrect weapons and magazine pictures in the inventory. This has required me to create new weapon classes. My plan is to make the default equipment of soldiers consist of things from these new classes, which will be identical to my modified default classes as far as values go. The old classes will still remain for missions that specifically make use of them, but the pictures will still be incorrect because, to my knowledge, there's no way to idependently assign pictures to weapons and magazines without creating a second magazine class.

Wasn't that supposed to be released by March at the latest? What ever happened to it? *edit: http://ofp.gamezone.cz/index.php?showthis=5906 That's where I got the idea that it was supposed to be out in March.

Does anybody know of any man-portable deployable mortar systems aside from those included in the WGL mod? (Ideally all in one piece so that one unit can carry and deploy it, regardless of how unlreasitic that is) I've just come up with an idea that I'd like to test the feasibility of, but I can't seem to find anything to test it with.

No worries about it being an isolated event. I just tried it myself on a loopback game and I got the error (in addition to "missing rhs_t55pack" errors.) It will require me to change the init script to fix. If I get a working fix and Raedor gives me the OK to include it with the next release, that will be one more problem solved. If he doesn't, then I'm just going to have to revert back to not using RHS' scripts. That will also solve the problem, but at the loss of features.

Could you copy down an exact error and post it for me? I'll look into it, but I've looked at RAE_init.sqs and suspect that I won't be able to fix the problem without incorporating a modified script into the config. Before I release the next version I think I'm going to check with raedor and see if that's all right with him because there are a couple of other (minor) problems that stem from that. Thanks. Hearing things like that makes me glad I've spent the effort.

Just an update: As of today, I've begun work on the next version. I've also been going through and straightening up my comments so that doing a non-dynamic range version of this config is just a small matter.

Oops. This was caused by a very small but stupid mistake on my part (I forgot to define the d10a cannon in CfgWeapons.) I have absolutely no idea why it didn't generate errors for me during my tests because it should have, but it didn't, which is why I failed to catch it. v0.3.1 should fix this bug.

Ugh. Always the smallest things... Thanks for pointing it out. Redownload the RAR and you'll get the .bin.

He has a DShK? I thought it only had the KORD and NSV? I'll have to look at the latest version.My reason for not using that pack's KORD was because I didn't think that a single machinegun really justified a 20MB download for somebody. This would be a good idea, but it would require me to have webspace with enough bandwidth to handle such a large download, which isn't free.Also, I suspect that a lot of addon makers would object to having people rip what they need out of their PBOs, make new ones, and offer them elsewhere.

*edit: If you downloaded this and found config.cpp instead of config.bin in the RAR, you'll need to redownload it. Don't use the .cpp to play or else you will experience a number of problems. v0.3 released Yes, one month and one day later, after several delays, it's finally released. I got what I needed from RHS this morning and finally finished this up. The fist post has been updated with links to the new units. Some notes: This version still requires Dynamic Range. Expect a non-DR version shortly. BAS' insertion/extraction scripts have been disabled on the UH-60. I did this because testing showed that this could cause some problems in missions not meant to use this feature. All other animations/scripts (save for those that conflict with ECP) have been retained. Both the UH-60 and UH-60MG have been replaced by the BAS UH-60L. I couldn't think of any BIS missions that required you to actually destroy armor with the UH-60, so that is why I did this. RHS' T-54 retains all of its scripts except for the fire script (conflicts with ECP's own) and the random number script. As far as this goes, I can't do anything about it because, after pulling apart the config and scripts, I found that the script depends upon RHS' class names in class cfgvehicles - this means that I can't make use of it without changing their script. If I continue to run into this problem in the future, I may create a (small) script PBO containing modified versions of scripts provided by addon makers -- with their permission, of course. The T-54 also retains the ability to carry 9 men in cargo as long as there is no gunner. I have not extensively tested this in the original missions, but I don't forsee it causing any problems. If somebody finds that it does, please post about it so that I can take a look at it. AKM74's KORD replaces the "M2 (East)" because Russians using an M2 is stupid. This could possibly cause problems in missions that had the original M2 in very confined places (like one of the fortress statics,) but I didn't find anything that kept it from firing. If anybody finds this to be a big problem in some mission, let me know.

Thanks. This does sound like a Dynamic Range issue...Do you have all of the Dynamic Range packs from the ECP site? In the ECP\Addons directory (or the same directory tree that this config is in?) You need them all for everything to have sound. If everything is in order, I'm not sure what I can suggest beyond redownloading and reinstalling the DR stuff. I will have a non-dynamic range version out with the next release, so you could also just sit tight and wait for that to see if it solves your problem. I'm hoping to get it out on Monday -- I talked to ShadowNX and he said that he's going to try to get me the last thing that I need this weekend, and if he does, I'll get it in, get it tested, and release it ASAP. But don't take that as a promise with the way that things have been going.

As far as I know, none of the addons have any config errors. I know the RHS T-64 has an error, but I'm not using that ATM.You really shouldn't be getting any errors at all. If you see it again, copy it down and post it. No. I considered it, but in the end I decided to wait until it's put into an official ECP build. Again, the reason is because th ECP crew will more than likely update that aspect of the config on numerous occasions and I don't want to fall behind because I'm not monitoring every aspect of their config in each release. What I have now would be pretty easy to port over to another ECP version. All That I need to do is paste it into the future config. I don't have to worry about checking to see if they've made any changes, and I'd like to keep it that way.That said, with the response to General Barron's changes, I suspect that they will be incorporated into the next official ECP build, and into my own config by extension. I'm not a member of the ECP team or anything (though, if they ever want to, I welcome them to incorporate anything I've done into official builds.) It would be confusing to have two seperate configs in one thread. I'll take a look at it, but I'm not sure how I could incorporate them to work with normal missions not intended to make use of them.

Me too. Apparently there was a miscommunication and I only wound up with half of what I needed. Any day now (I've been saying that for a while.) I could have released what I had a couple of weeks ago, but I don't want to release something until I consider it "complete" for its current stage of development. Once I have this last little bit, I'll consider this stage complete. Oh. I've never noticed.But, no. I won't be doing anything about that. I don't want to mess with any of the core ECP code too terribly much because I plan on keeping this current with future ECP releases. Having to scruitinize each release to see what changes the ECP guys have have made themselves would quickly become more time-consuming than I'd like, and I guarantee that any solution to any given problem that they could come up with would be about a hundred times better than mine.