Llauma

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Skaven @ Jan. 28 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We are also thinking on starting an enemy pack, don't know when, but we already thought about it, maybe Russians.<span id='postcolor'> Great.. That means alot of work for you and it will take some time but it will definitely be quality addons. The russians would propably be the best but it would be interesting with China as the enemy.

They look amazing. Can't wait to test them. The problem these units bring is that we need a good enemy unit pack. Is anyone making them? There are alot of great addon makers out there so why not combine there skills to make a opponent force to the BAS pack?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Jan. 28 2003,09:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It doesnt work because the pads are at an animation point of the leg...it looks worse than textured......trust me...we've looked into it.<span id='postcolor'> Too bad. But it looks great anyhow. I have an idea I am testing right now. If you remake the original glasses model (brejle) you have in the soldier model so it looks like for an example ski-glasses. Then you could choose in the player setup wether you want to have them on the model or not. It would only work properly with that specific unit but it would be cool. You could also make several different textured helmets. Just define the units helmet as brejle. This idea should be tested. So far my own testings looks promising.

Why not do modelled knee pads instead of textured? Maybe the animation makes it look ugly.. Well does it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 28 2003,09:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The most apparent proof of that it doesn't matter what Iraq does is the very clear change of requirement specifications. First a war on Iraq was motivated as the continuation of the "War on Terror". Every attempt to connect Iraq to AQ failed so another thing was invented. Iraq's alledged nuclear program was then the new reason for invasion. When that didn't work either then the requirements were changed again. The latest thing is WMD's in general now with a focus on chemical and biological weapons.<span id='postcolor'> Exactly.. And it's almost impossible for Iraq to prove that they do not have WMD's so therefor USA can finnally attack Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ Jan. 28 2003,09:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This topic does not seem to be related to OFP. Moving - guess where?<span id='postcolor'> Hawaii?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very simple: he hauls them out into broad daylight, lets the inspectors have a field day, and if, by some freak chance, he doesnt actually have WMDs, then he can trot out any remnants of the program (research areas, labs, loose materiel, whatever), because we KNOW that at one time he had them, and until we find it, or until UN inspectors can conclusively prove that Saddam actually destroyed them on his own (I almost cracked up while typing that part), then the threat of war will be clear and present.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How could he possibly be so reckless and 'lose' all those weapons into thin air? It's naive to suppose that he just can't prove he doesn't have them - WMDs are always catalogued and tracked. If they are destroyed, of course there is some kind of document of it. It's incomprihensible to me that some people think that Saddam doesn't know a thing about them. <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its not that he cant, he wont. <span id='postcolor'> As I said.. He can't possible do anything to satisfy USA. If he brings out a large amount of WMD's USA would say that if he still had WMD's now then what's the proof that he doesn't have more. It will just give USA a reason to invade Iraq to destroy the remaining WMD's. If Iraq came up with some documents that showed that they had destroyed the WMD's I know USA wouldn't accept them. A piece of paper can easily be faked. If USA has proof that Iraq has WMD's then show them to the inspectors so they can find them. But even if it turns out that Iraq has WMD's USA has no right to attack them on their own. Saddam has allowed to inspectors to visit all the desired places but offcourse his not happy having "western spies" in his country. I don't think any country in the world would be pleased with a scenario like that in their countries. I am sure that the proof USA says they have is not enough to convince the security counsil. But USA will take the law in their own hands and attack Iraq. They do not approve the ICC 'cause that would definitely put Bush and the generals in big problems for attacking Iraq. Still they continue to judge foreign citizens and countries in their own court. USA is fanatic to its own laws and values, paying no respects for international rules that oppose to their own. This is just like islamic countries like Iran.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 27 2003,23:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You guys are just about as optimistic as Bush is about Saddam disarming.<span id='postcolor'> Bush will attack even if Saddam disarms. How could Saddam possibly prove that he does not have any hidden weapons?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Jan. 27 2003,20:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 27 2003,19:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens next? My guess is that USA will try to get through a UN resolution for an attack by putting pressure on the other security council members that have veto rights (i.e France, China and Russia). USA has a military build-up in progress that will need a month or so to complete. Then there is going to be a war, regardless of what the UN says.<span id='postcolor'> If USA attacks Iraq without the support of the UN this crisis could become much more than just about Iraq. Even if they come up with proof that Iraq has WMD's I see no reason to attack Iraq. Especially USA shouldn't have any right to complain on Iraq as they have WMD's them selves and are willing to use them. The world has been united since the collapse of Soviet but now USA is ripping it apart again.<span id='postcolor'> The world has been far from united since the fall of the USSR! Â There hasnt been any monolithic 'cold war' sort of conflict/tension, but to declare that the US is ripping apart an existing world unity is a little ludicrous. They are however trying to appear to be the knight in shining armour, protecting the world from evil... but it comes off as the biggest kid in the schoolyard beating up a smaller kid to make a point.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe not a complete unity but it was going towards that. The eastern european countries were closer to europe and america. USA and China had a more open relationship. I can't think of any period in history when the world had been more united. USA is doing eveything to get a war. I thought they had learned not to use nukes but I was wrong. They have stated to use them again on Iraq if needed. The whole idea with the war was to eliminate any possible WMD's Iraq might have. So do you do that with WMD's? I have never heard so much bull shit. Don't they see the problem with the idea? The pre-emptive attack idea wouldn't that give Saddam the right to send some WMD's against USA? It is pretty obvious that USA is going to attack him. Or is that somehow different?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 27 2003,18:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens next? My guess is that USA will try to get through a UN resolution for an attack by putting pressure on the other security council members that have veto rights (i.e France, China and Russia). USA has a military build-up in progress that will need a month or so to complete. Then there is going to be a war, regardless of what the UN says.<span id='postcolor'> If USA attacks Iraq without the support of the UN this crisis could become much more than just about Iraq. Even if they come up with proof that Iraq has WMD's I see no reason to attack Iraq. Especially USA shouldn't have any right to complain on Iraq as they have WMD's them selves and are willing to use them. The world has been united since the collapse of Soviet but now USA is ripping it apart again.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ Jan. 27 2003,15:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, the radiation of blown up bukers might be low, not taking into account any eventual spread of stored WMD:s. But the worst is ofcourse USA:s signal in being prepared to use nuclear bombs, even if not attacked first... What was this (well, still not 100% a fact) war about now again? Â <span id='postcolor'> I wanna laugh at USA's stupidity but it's hard to laugh when thousand of innocent people could be killed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ Jan. 27 2003,04:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To all of you who enjoyed nam pack 2, and the hk pack series, where you get all your stuff in one pbo, you will be glad to hear that an associate of mine and me are working on getting permissions to compile a complete desert pack. Â That's right all your desert addons in one pbo file. Â Now refer your friends to one download for your desert maps instead of several downloads. Â Right now we're working on the permissions but it should be out some time by this next month. Â One complete desert addon package. Â If you have any suggestions to desert addons out there that should be in the pack please post here.<span id='postcolor'> Will you modify the config files so the weapons and vehicles use some kind of standard?

USA is considering using nukes in Iraq? Read these two articles from the LA Times. U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq The Nuclear Option in Iraq You must register to read them but it only takes a couple of minutes.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 27 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">which brings up the question, why are they impact detonated and not time detonated?<span id='postcolor'> The engine has propably problems making it look real. I think it would get stuck right where it hits the ground. So to remove that problem they let it detonate at impact.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 26 2003,19:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wtf? am i on electoral college debate here? i thought it was about what would future of iraq will be? <span id='postcolor'> If Bush was not legally elected then he is not allowed to order the american troops to attack Iraq. Just trying to find the connection

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ Jan. 26 2003,10:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Since any state can legally be won even if only one person in each state votes, that means 11 people could legally decide the presidency of the worlds "greatest democracy." <span id='postcolor'> Hehe.. The last election was even worse than your worst scenario. It ended up in 7 people(judges) legally electing the president

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Jan. 26 2003,16:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Does anyone ever look down the barrel and say "what's wrong with this thi......................"? <span id='postcolor'> Only once...

More animations. Boarding vehicles is a major part of OFP so it could need a better animation. Maybe animations connected to the orders so when you order the soldiers to stop the leader will do the stop sign with his hand. Dynamic inviroment. Trees that moves in the wind. Lights in the houses that could be turned on and off (would look cool in the dark). The light houses should be on during the night. Burning houses and vehicles with sound of fire would add alot to the feeling. The water should be improved (maybe several more or less transparent textures so the deeper it is the more layers you'll have too see throu). That would be a simple solution to see the bottom of the river at shallow places. The shadows could be more blured. I really hope and believe that BIS will have more money developing OFP2 so it will be more finished when they release it. Most of the improvements I'll like to see are no problem to do. It's all about spending more hours polishing the game. Maybe BIS should pay a visit to their czech colleges at Illusion softworks. Mafia has a great atmosphere. I really like the reflecting surfaces among other things. This was about the visual parts of the game. I'll try to come up with some ideas about the other parts later.

More animations. Boarding vehicles is a major part of OFP so it could need a better animation. Maybe animations connected to the orders so when you order the soldiers to stop the leader will do the stop sign with his hand. Dynamic inviroment. Trees that moves in the wind. Lights in the houses that could be turned on and off (would look cool in the dark). The light houses should be on during the night. Burning houses and vehicles with sound of fire would add alot to the feeling. The water should be improved (maybe several more or less transparent textures so the deeper it is the more layers you'll have too see throu). That would be a simple solution to see the bottom of the river at shallow places. The shadows could be more blured. I really hope and believe that BIS will have more money developing OFP2 so it will be more finished when they release it. Most of the improvements I'll like to see are no problem to do. It's all about spending more hours polishing the game. Maybe BIS should pay a visit to their czech colleges at Illusion softworks. Mafia has a great atmosphere. I really like the reflecting surfaces among other things. This was about the visual parts of the game. I'll try to come up with some ideas about the other parts later.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 26 2003,05:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So wait a minute, we're giving all these people money? Â For what?<span id='postcolor'> Support

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 25 2003,11:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">current support for a war solution on Iraq: - China : No - Russia: No - France: No - Germany: No - Brittain: Yes - US: Yes<span id='postcolor'> - Llauma: No

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Jan. 25 2003,11:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Question to all: What about Sweden, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, Belgium ? What do the politicians and people say and think there ?<span id='postcolor'> Sweden is quiet as usual. The prime minister does not want to pick a side, he let's the UN decide it. Swedes have a saying "Skynda lĺngsamt", which means hurry slowly. That's pretty much the swedish attitude to everything. Only one prime minister in sweden has had the guts to say what he thinks. That he got murdered for it is another story. The swedish citizens are mostly against a war on Iraq.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ Jan. 24 2003,14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Technology may well have advanced, but why use all of your new expensive advanced equipment? Seems like a perfect opportunity to off load all of the old rusting ordnance that costs so much money in storage and maintenance.<span id='postcolor'> It's a opportunity to test new weapons and systems.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Jan. 24 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is not going to stop, because currently Bush has a strong mandate to attack Iraq from the only people who matter to his maintenance of power. Until the President of the US starts getting elected by the UN, the same principle will apply. Now, I can choose to yell and scream until I'm blue in the face about it, or I can buckle down and hope that as few people die as possible, and if necessary do my part to bring the conflict to a resolution. The part that can't be denied is that Saddam is one bad motherfucker, and that even if it happens for the wrong reasons, the world will be a better place when he is six feet under.<span id='postcolor'> It doesn't matter if 100% of the americans do support Bush's plans, if the UN do not approve it. USA will commit a crime if they attack Iraq and will for sure be punished for it. It's not only the american law that applies on you. As a member of UN you must follow the rules of UN. This might come as a shock for you but America is not the centre of the universe which all spinns around.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 24 2003,03:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 24 2003,02:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 24 2003,02:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 24 2003,02<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What right do US courts have to judge foreign countries when USA don't even approve the international criminal court (ICC). I admit that shooting down a cessna appears to be quite stupid. But USA have shot down a Iranian passanger plane. Here's some info about it. The captain of USS Vincennes was awarded with a medal. They also sunk Iranian patrol boats on iranian territory.<span id='postcolor'> USS Stark<span id='postcolor'> It's no use the counter with another incident. It will just end up with Hiroshima and you wont be able to show anything equal to it. I showed another incident where a civilian plane was shot down.<span id='postcolor'> You seem to think that this incident happened in a vacuum, which is not the case. Did you read the article or did you just dismiss it because you don't want to know the surrounding circumstances, just to blindly lash out? The shooting was a critical error, and the US paid reparations (as did Iraq for the Stark Incident), but to think that the Vincennes was just sitting in the Gulf and said "I think I will shoot down that plane" is ignorance at its best. PS...I can show something that is "equal" to Hiroshima, and have. But I was labeled a rascist, threatened with banning and because of the fact it wasn't the US, it was quickly dismissed (not even renounced) and ignored by all.<span id='postcolor'> It was very likely a mistake that caused the shoot down, but awarding the captains with medals shows us the respect USA has for non-american citizens.