Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by KTottE

  1. I'll express my opinion anyway I want as long as it doesn't violate the laws of my country.

    You will abide by the forum's rules else you will be banned from these forums.

    Or else! The best argument of all time, if someone doesn't act according to your exact wishes you banish him from the lands.

    I'm not scared of your threats, so if you want to ban me then fine.

  2. KTottE by all means have an opinion contrary to other people, however expressing said opinion in a way that constitutes flame baiting is not acceptable.

    *My* post is a flamebait? What about hardrock's post then?!

    I'll express my opinion anyway I want as long as it doesn't violate the laws of my country.

  3. September 11, 1297 - Battle of Stirling Bridge.

    September 11, 1943 - The beginning of the liquidation of the ghettos, by the nazis.

    September 11, 1965 - The 1st Cavalry Division of the US Army lands in Vietnam.

    September 11, 1973 - Augusto Pinochet seizes the power in Chile from the democratically ellected Salvador Allende.

    But yes, let's remember the 3000 americans who died in the World Trade Center attack. Nobody really cares about those others anyway, they're not even red-blooded americans!

  4. Hello everyone.

    I am not sure if people remember this, but quite some time ago the OFP Internals-crew released the file format description for the P3D MLOD format.

    It was available on their site (which is closed down now) and on OFPEC as well (which as you may know suffered a crash and lost all that data), but now I am unable to locate it.

    I am writing this topic in the hopes that one kind soul on this forum has the documentation saved away someplace safe, or knows where it can still be accessed.

    The reason for this is that I am interested in writing a P3D import/export plugin for the Blender 3D modeling package, and I obviously cannot do that if I do not know how to read (and write) the P3D MLOD format smile_o.gif

    Thank you.

  5. Yes, phase one for SFP after arma is released is to move the current things over to arma properly.

    After that we will most likely look at improving what we have now in terms of the new texturing options and so on, as well as explore how much of the scripting/config bugs and limitations we can eliminate.

    Making new things will most likely not be a priority right at first.

  6. Swedish Forces Pack 4.1.2 has been released. This release includes a number of updates by our house-trained monkey, Tonner.

    See our forum here for more details.

    FA Dalai Lamar: I think I found the source of the problems. When you opened the files, did everything appear to be on a single line, without any linebreaks?

    If that's the case, then the problem has been fixed. Apparently some of the files used Unix-style linebreaks. I didn't notice it since my text editor displays those linebreaks properly, but I've gone through the files now (all 290 of them) and made sure they are all using Windows-style linebreaks.

  7. We have balanced our weapons against the standard BIS units (BMP, T72, T80 etc.) since that is one common denominator between everyone who plays OFP.

    Wouldn't it have made more sense to balance it in relation to the standard BIS antitank weapons?

    No, then our weapons would have the same messed up values as they do. I understand and support BIS when they gave their AT-weapons the values they did, so this is not meant as a negative criticism towards them.

    Anyway, all OFP players have the standard BIS BMP, T-72, T-80 etc. available in their games, and in fact many missions use them for the opposing forces. This means that by balancing our weapons against them (Weapon X should have Y effect on vehicle Z) we know that against those vehicles the weapons will be correct.

  8. Quote[/b] ]

    Why did you make the AT4 (pskott) so weak?

    The Pansarskott M/86 is not weak in SFP 4, it's too strong in other addons.

    Realistically speaking it takes two to three hits from an AT4 to destroy an armoured vehicle such as an MT-LB or a BMP.

    We have balanced our weapons against the standard BIS units (BMP, T72, T80 etc.) since that is one common denominator between everyone who plays OFP.

    It takes two direct hits from our AT4 to destroy a BMP-class vehicle in OFP. If OFP had modeled penetration properly we could have reconfigured it to work differently. But as it stands now, the damage values will not change since we in SFP crew feel they are realistic and give good playability.

    Quote[/b] ]

    And why does the sfp_scripts.pbo stop working once I unpack-change-repack it?

    I get some errormessage about some initHE and what not..

    There is no sfp_scripts.pbo file, so that may be the reason it stops working.

  9. Quote[/b] ]

    tgb-1111 that suppose to carry rbs-56(bill) doesn't have any ammo, just tripod and missile tube, when mounting tube on tripod you will see no ammo...

    The car has the ammo, it's had it from the first time it was introduced. We keep getting this bugreport with every patch release smile_o.gif

    <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">

    class SFP_tgb1111rb56: SFP_tgb1111



    class TransportWeapons


    class rb56


    weapon = SFP_rb56Wpn;

    count = 1;


    class Rb56tri


    weapon = SFP_rb56WpnTripod;

    count = 1;



    class TransportMagazines


    class Rb56


    magazine = SFP_rb56magDummy;

    count = 12;




  10. I am unsure as to how you should use this tool.

    I have copied the folder from which I create my PBO into a new folder called PatchTest. I also copied an 'unpatched' version of the PBO into the same PatchTest folder.

    I then start the patch generator, click the Add button and browse to the PatchTest\Foldername folder.

    After that I select the PatchTest\Foldername.pbo file.

    Then I click Make patch and select to save the patch in the same PatchTest folder.

    When I try to apply this patch, it exits with an application error saying:

    Quote[/b] ]

    Exception EResNotFound in module patch.exe at 00011B6D.

    Resource PATCH55 not found.

    What causes this exception?

  11. Yeah i can pic it up and deploy it as an EOD guy, but not when i have placed the object seperatley from SFP>Objects in Mission Editor, then go to pick it up as a non-EOD guy. I'd like to be able to pick it up as a standard Infatry or Ranger or Marine, etc, load it in a car or just carry it along and then deploy it, rather than having to start out as a EOD guy.

    I just tried this (standard infantry rifleman) and it worked, maybe you could try again?


  12. HotShot, not sure what you are referring to with the EOD/Shield.

    When I placed it myself (I was playing as EOD), I could place it and take it up again without a problem.

    When I played with an EOD as a member of my squad, I could order him to place the shield and then take the shield myself.

    What was the problem?

  13. Armour value standardisation is really necessary in OFP.

    As it stands now, XXX_M1A2 is a rolling fortress that can't be touched other than by thermonuclear bombs, and YYY_T90 can't even scratch the surface of the XXX_M1A2, but in turn gets chewed up by the M1A2's cannon.

    We in Swedish Forces Pack made the decision to balance our values against the default BIS armour values, since that was one common reference for all OFP players.

    The process is fairly simple, we look up the penetration value for our ammunition (both AT launchers and tank cannons), then we look up the armour thickness of the BMP, T72 and T80 respectively and we tweak the damage done by our projectiles until the damage done (as reported by getDammage) on the default BIS vehicles match the specs.

    Theoretical example:

    T80 has 800mm of armour.

    Carl Gustav HEAT penetrates 400mm.

    So we set the damage values for the CG HEAT so that it takes two to completely destroy a T80.

    It's far from a perfect solution but it's the only one we've been able to come up with within the scope of config changes. We really don't want to make eventHandlers to handle damage on armour.