miles teg

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bosniarat @ Nov. 16 2002,00:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Never mind my comment on the Rifling of the barrels, I stand corrected. But With that the More rifling you have in the Barrel the Hotter the rifle will get due to Friction that is caused. while the Ak has a 4 twists to it (as i found out, sorry B.) the M-16 and the M-4 Have a 1 in 7" twist which tends to melt barrels faster than the Ak. So I was incorrect on my comment about the Ak. But as for accuracy the M-16 and its varients Smoke the Ak, but when most engagments in a combat area tend to be 50 to 100m Who cares about accurecy the SR-47 Is mostly For Weight the Ak Weights in at nearly 10 lbs, while the SR-47 Should (now should be i can not confirm this) weight in at about 5 lbs freeing up 5 pounds. in Theory Only. In All honestly the Weapon fully loaded problebly weights in at 7 pounds, because 7.62 is much heavier than 5.56 Well anyways Who cares Its just a game Great Model Earl Keep up the Good Work! HOOOAAAH!<span id='postcolor'> I don't know about barrels melting. I've fired a hell of alot of rounds through the M16A2 and never had any serious problem with the barrel getting too hot. The main advantage of the SR-47 is simply that it has good accuracy and can use ammo commonly found in most theatre's of operation. It was used by some SF in Afghanistan simply because they found 7.62mmx39mm ammo all over the place there. U.S. Army Special Forces (also known as the Green Berets) tend to operate far away from supply channels. In addition, resupply can be chancy depending on the altitude they are operating at and the weather. With the SR-47 they are able to use magazines and ammunition scavanged from the battlefield off dead Afghan bodies or from local friendly militias. So, for their purpose, the SR-47 makes perfect sense. Russian ammo (which I've used) is actually not all that bad except for some of the older stuff that has corrosive powder (you simply need to clean the rifle well after usage with water and then after drying with regular gun cleaning oils). As far as blending in goes, the SF guys generally wear uniforms that stick out like a sore thumb. In other words they generally haven't been dressing like locals except for a few here and there. I've mostly only seen CIA paramilitaries dressed up like locals and even those guys still stick out even when they grow out their beards (aside from a few hispanic guys who might pass for Middle-Easterners). Also, I can tell you for a fact that accuracy matters greatly! The combat distances you quote are from the Vietnam War. Combat distances in Afghanistan tend to be a bit farther then that. You have to have a well maintained and well made Ak-47 and be a decent shot to hit 200 meter man size targets with an AK. With a SR-47 (which from what I hear is similar in accuracy to the M-4) you should be able to easily hit 200 meter targets especially with an optical site on the weapon. I assume 300 meter targets shouldn't be much of a problem either as the rifle also has a free-floating barrel design. The compensator on the end should also help prevent the muzzle rise that you get alot of on Ak-47's also although I'm not sure how the silencer effects this. In an engagement, the ability to rapidly put your sites on a target and accurately deliver rounds onto the target can make a big difference. However in close range combat such as in heavily wooded areas or in urban areas, the AK-47 probably has an advantage as it very rarely jams. Assuming the SR-47 uses a similar gas system as the M16A2, it will and can jam on occasion...something which can mean death in a close quarters battle. In those situations, reliability, a high rate of fire, and magazine capacity become the dominant concerns. That's probably one reason why a lot of the CIA guys in Afghanistan carry around AK's of various sorts as they generally operate in urban areas there. The stock Russian-made AK-47 is also I think a very comfortable weapon that is well balanced, not overly heavy, and just highly reliable and effective at close ranges. However the main reason for it's inaccurate fire is because of poor part tolerances in the manufacturing specs. Often for example the bolt may be loose in the receiver or other parts may not fit really well together. All of these things add to innaccuracy. But usually it's accuracy was "good enough" for Soviet style of combat in which infantry depended more on maintaining a heavy volume of fire rather then accuracy. However these days the Russians are making their rifles (like the AK-103) to be more and more accurate while trying to keep the reliability of the older AK-47/74's. But at any rate, in real life, you use what's best for the mission (when possible). In OFP, this addon will allow users to pickup the AK mags from dead resistance soldiers (or any other addon units who use the Ak-47) while using nice aim dot sites for better accuracy. So it will be a very good weapon to have for SF missions. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Wow! Those units look incredible! Excellent job on the new collars and berets. They look now as if they are wearing Gortex jackets. Actually it would even be cooler if they had slightly baggier sleeves and stuff to simulate them wearing a gortex jacket and maybe a bigger hood clumped up in back of their head and around the collar, but still as they are your units still look very realistic. The only gripe I might have is the unit with the helmet...the helmet looks a little odd, but perhaps it's just because of the angle I'm looking at it. I'm sure once it has the proper cammo, it'll look much better. Oh...and is that a headset com system on one soldier? That would be very cool! But if you can show the mouth piece mic extending out next to the soldier's mouth that would be even better (unless it's there and I just can't see it well). An example of this is like on some of the German troops in the HKweapons pack and in the BW mod. Also any plans for British troops in desert uniforms such as those used in Afghanistan? I'm ex-U.S. Army myself, but I still enjoy making British Army missions. I had some good ones almost finished with the old Bibmi British airborne troops so hopefully once your units and Bibmi's units get finished I can finish up some of those missions and get them out for people to play. So anyways cheers for the excellent work. Keep it up cuz it looks like it will be a fantastic unit addon! Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Nagual @ Nov. 13 2002,22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Nov. 13 2002,00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm... camcreating is a bit difficult. Â I've yet to see a tutorial for how to camcreate an additional vehicle AND then name it and give it waypoints on top of that.<span id='postcolor'> Miles, heres a little way to do that. Shown to me recently by a mate, pynaple (a lil off topic but incontext). Just make a unit, give him the desired waypoints, then put in his init: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> grp1=group this; deletevehicle this <span id='postcolor'> Then he will not be on the map when mission starts, an empty group was created. Then using a distance based trigger or anything, in the script you want the unit spawned put: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> helo1 = "bas_mh6" createvehicle getpos posuwanthim "OfficerWB" createUnit [posuwanthim,grp1,"g1=this; this moveindriver helo1"] <span id='postcolor'> (posuwant him is anything like a game logic or another units name) (g1 is new name of spawned unit) So basically an empty group is created, then spawn any named units into that group, and they can be used as normal after they are spawned and will follow the set waypoint as if they were always there. Pynaple did crazy things with that stuff, like entire airbases that appear/dissapear depending on player distance.<span id='postcolor'> Wow! That's great stuff... good for "ghost missions" also! LOL! You should type that up and submit it to the OFP Editing Center as a tutorial. That's definitely very useful! Especially for creating ambushes and keeping frame rates down to a minimum while still being able to use large amounts of units. That's always been a problem for me. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CrunchyFrog @ Nov. 12 2002,15:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (pang @ Nov. 12 2002,14<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DO extend the buttstock! makes the weapon looks much cooler... and the normal m16 works fine, too... though it has a pretty big buttstock<span id='postcolor'> No dont extend the buttstock, since it would then go into the soldiers arm... which looks incredible stupid. And, if you make the gun accept original AK47 mags, it will turn into a original AK47, just with your model.<span id='postcolor'> I'm sure he'll work out how far to extend the butt-stock. I've seen one M4 addon with a fully extended butt-stock that looked very nice as it was actually realistic in size (the stock OFP M16's are way too fat). As for it using AK-47 mags, that's exactly what it was designed for so I think it should DEFINITELY use the standard BIS AK47 mags. That should be simple enough to do. The difference will be that it has a scope. Perhaps it could be made with less recoil? Or is that a characteristic of the ammo used? Whatever the case I hope it will allow you to pick up AK47 mags (NOT AK74 mags) off of dead resistance soldiers and use them. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SelectThis @ Nov. 12 2002,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess it's all subjective, I've heard of a UH1H carrying 16 people..when it's only listed at 12...so if we do 6 on the LB's what's to stop someone coming along and saying.. well...you could fit 2 more inside, and then in a pinch throw a few more people acorss their laps, so don't limit it to 6, let us carry 10 people in the LB, because it "could" be possible in a real emergency. (Hell.. I've had 12 people in a VW Beetle before, and 4 people on a motorbike...maybe we should ask all the car addon makers to put seating in for 12 Â in their cars and maybe I should add 2 more seats to the Kawasaki KLR250). Anyway, I have yet to see a mission which allows for an alternative heli to be used for extraction if the primary heli gets hit (then again I don't get to play much! lol). I'm sure it could be done though, but what's to stop the author camcreating another heli if needed? SelectThis<span id='postcolor'> Hmm... camcreating is a bit difficult. I've yet to see a tutorial for how to camcreate an additional vehicle AND then name it and give it waypoints on top of that. Maybe it's possible but if it is I haven't seen it done nor have I seen any tutorials on how to do that. However I have made missions where there are backup helicopters that are triggered to take off and extract your troops if the first extraction helicopter is destroyed. It's difficult to do but possible. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Nov. 12 2002,12:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Nov. 11 2002,07:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">RE Sit:  In war, they would probably find the space on the LB or if that could not be done, all of the troops would stay put, pull security and wait for another bird.  <span id='postcolor'> Which means they could use the space inside the aircraft, and the two extra places on the bench. In a hot LZ, if it were me, I would  use this option, rather than try to secure a perimiter. In the kind of raid undertaken by Special Forces, I think the situanion on the ground could only get worse with delay. BHD is a prime example; If that helo hadn't been hit, the Somalis would still have been scratching their heads while the US forces were enjoying a beer and a barby. Instead, 19 Americans dead, and approximately 1000 Somalis.  I'm not saying the situation I outlined is identical, but they both have one thing in common, the moral of the story: It doesn't pay to stick around. Sticking to SOP in the case of troops carried gives a  commander extra options; staying within its boundaries allows greater flexibility in an emergancy. What you do with this information is of course up to you. Keep up the good work. I should read what I write before I post!<span id='postcolor'> I agree. In a tactical situation, if you are outnumbered, you always try to extract as quickly as possible or you stay mobile and try to extract yourself from the area (or meet up with a friendly force) unless you can safely secure a landing zone where your extraction helicopters won't get shot down. In Somalia the situation was complicated by the fact that they had wounded who couldn't be moved around so they were forced to set up a hasty defensive perimeter. In that scenario a Little Bird was successful in pulling out some of the wounded. If the AH6 is capable of holding two extra people in the back, then that option should be left in. To the BAS addonmakers....ask your Ranger "advisors" if the AH-6 is capable of picking up two men in an emergency. If it is leave this in. If not, then take it out. Simple as that. I still disagree with the earlier decision to leave only 4 bench seats on the MH6 simply because it's possible on the real thing and it's good for hostage rescue missions where you don't want a big blackhawk for extraction. The less seats available on your LB's means the more birds needed and thus slower frame rates on missions. By at least keeping the extra seats on the AH-6 (assuming the real thing is capable of holding two extra people) it gives a mission maker some flexibility without being unrealistic. Also please remember that more then just the Army Rangers use the LB's. Delta Force and Special Forces (Green Berets) may have different SOP's when it comes to employing the Little Birds. So please I beg of you, don't limit the mission maker by taking options out that are within realistic limits. If you are doing it because it can't be done in real life that's one thing. But if you are doing it, just because you can and because you don't like being criticized, then that's something else. Please remove your ego from the addon and try to look at it from the viewpoint of a mission maker. Again if the AH-6 CAN NOT in any way ever carry 2 extra people, take the seats out. If the MH-6 can NEVER carry more then 4 people in a real life combat situation, then leave them out. But if they can PLEASE put the extra cargo positions in. You could also do a poll on the mission maker's section of this forum to see what everyone there wants. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

I just wanted to mention that GFX-707's SA80 also is flawed because the AI fire it on full-auto at all ranges and thus miss everything at medium to long range and get slaughtered by the Russians. That SAS addon that came out recently is an example of this. They used GFX's SA80 but they didn't fix it either. Hopefully Bibmi's new British forces will have a fixed SA80. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Nov. 09 2002,16:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it is a good idea to port CS weapons into OFP, many people in that community are fantastic at models and textures, I suppose you do not need to ask them, just say that the model and textures were made by them. (This is not directed at you, Bergmania). I'm going to go check if there are any cool CS models I can import, now. Â Great work Bergmania, definetly missing in OFP, great for Noone's IDF pack!<span id='postcolor'> Does anyone have a link to Noone's IDF pack? Is it the best IDF pack out so far? It would be nice if someone made a nice "West Bank" map with plenty of Middle Eastern style buildings and stuff. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Personally I thought that the textures outside were fine, but as others mentioned, inside the turret it could use some work. Here are things that need to be fixed: 1. As others said, a real weapons site for the machine gun. 2. The correct designation for the machine gun which is a 14.5mm machine gun (not a .50 cal). 3. The real BTR-70 also has a coaxial 7.62mm machine gun next to the 14.5mm machine gun. It would be cool to switch between the two and perhaps give the 7.62 less killing power but a higher rate of fire. 4. Improved sound for the 14.5mm machine gun. Something nice and heavy with plenty of bass frequencies to the sound so that people know a heavy machine gun is being fired at them. 5. In the crew compartment, better seats for the driver and front seat passenger would be nice. 6. If possible a more realistic dashboard and not the same one as the Patria addon. I understand if pics are hard to come by of the driver compartment in the BTR-70, however at least the existing textures taken from the Patria could be modified to make it look more like a typical Russian vehicle painted in that ugly green color. Maybe throw in a few more dials and things in there. 7. Passenger compartment needs better texturing. Around the vision ports for example could be better outlined and other little details could be added. The periscope sites are I imagine difficult to implement, but if the existing vision ports could be lowered a little that would be nice. If not that's ok. Other then that, the vehicle handles well, and the AI gunners engage the enemy well. Likewise the enemy AI really enjoy shooting RPG's and tank shells at it. I also really like the way the 4 front tires turn together and the sound of the engine is fine. Overall it's really great addon I think. Just with a little more work it could be an amazing addon! I look forward to seeing newer versions of this. As is it's very enjoyable, and can only get better! Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (deadsoldier @ Nov. 08 2002,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so u guys think that giving it a nuke isn;t such a good idea? About AI using it...they would treat it like a gravity bomb..they would dive bomb a target. In the case the of the AGM-130, i watched an AI blow him self out of the air cause he was too low when he dived bomb. The bomb is powerful...maybe a little too much..we will reduce by 25% or and see how it goes. I dropped the AGM-130 from 3500 meters from a hieght of 900 meters and got a direct hit. its pretty sweet.i love watching it glide to its target and BAAM. Please give suggestions on what u would like to see on it..in the limits of OFP. cheers<span id='postcolor'> Cluster bombs would be nice but difficult to do. Perhaps making them something like the G8 Tornado's MW-1 (what they call a JP-233 but it isn't) sub-munition dispenser? Just a thought unless somehow a bomb can be made that breaks away into smaller bomblets, but I don't think that's possible in the OFP engine. Anyways, just something to maybe tinker with. Other then that... a HUD would be nice if it's not already in there (sorry I didn't read the earlier posts so my apologies if it's alraedy in). Hmmm... well...just like others said, just make it where the AI uses it well and where it fly's reasonably well. If you could get it to fly as well as the G8 Tornado, that would be sweet, as the Tornado I think is one of the best handling aircraft that I've seen in OFP so far. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Nov. 08 2002,22:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wOw  Great to hear  <span id='postcolor'> Until then at least we have the current BIS made M60 that can be used to simulate the M60A1 model along with the M113 which looks fairly close to what was used in Vietnam. The Vulcan AA system was also used, but I'm not sure if it looked like what we see in OFP. Finally if I'm not mistaken I believe the NVA had some T-55's which I seem to remember smashing through the U.S. embassy gates in Saigon when Saigon fell. So T-55's will be good to use. So yeah it'll rock to see in OFP some of the armor listed by Evi. But new tanks are very difficult to create so I wouldn't hold your breath that these will all come out soon. But hopefully at least some of the cooler ones (like the PT-76 and the Sheridan light tank) will come out before the years out. But... I'd rather see some more aircraft like the F-105 Thunderchief (The Thud), and the A1 Skyraider first. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Nov. 07 2002,02:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Very nice, waiting to try the LAV 3 and Coyote. Â I am wondering though, where is the beaver weapon? Â Â j/k<span id='postcolor'> When the LAV comes out I just hope they do like the DKM mod team did with the Patria and that is to release both a Canadian version and also a "international" version that could be used by any country because the LAV is also used by the USMC and I would really love to use it with Frandsen's U.S.M.C. addon. Otherwise it's fairly useless for those of us who aren't Canadian. If not then all I can do is just download them, play with them a bit, and then wish that I could use them in one of my missions... which I can't because I know very little about the Canadian military other then a bit about their service in Somalia and Afghanistan. So to the guys making the LAV's, PLEASE make a international version as lot of countries use the LAV's. Thanks. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

I concur! The best M240 by far and one of the best guns made yet for OFP. Superb work! Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Nov. 04 2002,21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the thing is, i think everyone on ballistic either uses keyboard and mouse or a joystick, so even if we tried to make a new version, how would we know how to make it manouver better if we think all just mouse helo's move like large drunk cows?, if you need more than 4 guys...why not just use another littlebird? or yes, you could use drakkens or capt moores but IMHO they dont look as good..., if we put 6 guys on the planks what about the people that only want four guys on the planks as they think with only 4 guys on a 6 seat helo it looks like they are saving a couple of seats for someone? unfortunately to cater to everyones tastes it would take far too long and far too many versions, and yes there are about 8 versions of the MH-60's half with fuel probes half without and that CH-53 on the site probably cant be used...but i wont go into that here...<span id='postcolor'> Fair enough. Â Really I think that overall the Little Birds you guys made are good addons. Â But I'll stop with my "constructive criticisms" as my purpose is not to whine about in continuously because I know how annoying that can be. Â I'm pretty sure I made most of my points fairly well, and I respect the decisions you guys decide on concerning what to implement on the final version of the Little Birds so that's fine. Â That's great news about the MH-60's also! Â I'm REALLY looking foward to sending those Pavehawks into action with Special Ops teams. Â Keep up the great work guys! Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 02 2002,06:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its 4 people. god stop arguing you guys are never happy are you? Â you get the best addon ever for ofp, the most realistic in ALL aspects--especially carrying capacity--and you still whine and moan about it. Â i bet you guys would tell the CO of the 160th himself that "umm sir those little birds are wrong. they should be like this....[insert complaint here]" Â just accept them as they are. Â admit that you dont know everything you thought you did. Â sure they CAN carry six people... and a boeing 747 CAN carry bombs. Â but that doesnt mean you have to do it. Â you want a little bird with 6 seats, different handling, and other stuff? Â have at it. make your own. BAS i just want u guys to know that this is the best addon ever and, having some first hand experience with the 160th, i can safely say that your little birds are about as accurate as they can get within the limitations of ofp. Â keep up the excellent work!!<span id='postcolor'> Alright Mr. Special Forces, but my question has not been answered. Why do most of the training videos I've seen and photos of the MH-6 in action show 6 commandos riding on it? As Wardog very elequently put it, why put artificial limits on the MH-6 Let the mission maker decide. Is that such a crime to ask? Don't even compare it to putting bombs on a 747. The 747 was not designed as a bomber. However if we were talking about the max passenger capacity of a 747 then yeah there would be room for some debate on that most likely. As for this LB being the best OFP addon ever, well that's subjective. It's a great addon no doubt, but it could be ALOT better. For me the tops so far is probably the DKM OV-10 broncos. Also remember one big difference here is that there are TWO other MH-6 Little Birds out right now, so people do have a choice. I'm making these criticisms to hopefully push BAS to make the BEST Little Birds. Also to answer's Evi's reply about the guys being too sqooshed on the LB's. The guys on the Drakken's and Capt. Moore's LB's don't look too squooshed to me. They can fit (perhaps the bench needs some extending) so I don't think that's a good reason. But again if BAS doesn't want to, the that's fine. But they should know that many mission maker's will most likely use Drakken's MH-6. Also if you want to talk about stretching the truth...well there's the "movable miniguns" on the AH-6...not quite realistic right...but they're their anyways to enhance game play. But you don't see anyone complaining too much about that. Putting 6 men on the MH-6's is NOT the end of the world. If you want 4 men only you could still only put 4 men on it. All I ask is the freedom of having this choice. ...oh and hopefully improved handling with the mouse if that's possible. Again, it's just constructive criticism. I'm not saying it sucks or anything. But again I hope that their LB's will be the definitive Little Birds where there is no doubt that they are the best ever made. But right now due to some of the handling issues, and the carrying capacity of the MH-6, that is questionable to some of us. To the BAS crew. Keep up the good work and again, it's up to you guys if you want to work on these issues. If not then that's cool. I actually would rather see you all spending time on making a good MH-60 Pavehawk.... Oh speaking of the MH-60.... I know it's not out yet, but I notice that on the new screenshots the refueling probe is removed. Please tell me that there will be at least one model with a refueling probe!!!! If not I'm going to go nuts! I mean I know that in Somalia the refueling probes were removed, but otherwise most of the current models have them if I'm not mistaken... plus the Pavehawks just look a hell of a lot meaner looking with the refueling probes. Same with the CH53. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chronicles @ Nov. 02 2002,23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When i put the littlebirds on a mission the game crashes and gives the error message "cannot load mipmap bas_lbs\m\tjpcntcon.paa". I'm using the 1.46 version. <span id='postcolor'> I tried the Littlebirds on the desert island map , and each time i first put it , then click on preview , i had an error about a file not loaded, but by just use the ENTER key, i bypass the error and can continue for precision, i dont have any other addon in my addon folder The error i have when i preview (it occurs only for the first time i preview after launching OFP and including one of the BAS addon chopper, after the error never show up) Â is this -Cannot open object data3d\beretta.p3d Now about gameplay ,i dont understand why some people here said this Littlebird is not easy to handle. I tried it and found this helico really easy to fly (i have only mouse and keyboard , no joystick) Is the 1.85 version different of my 1.46 ?<span id='postcolor'> I will say it again...the way the the BAS LB's handle depends on HOW you fly with the mouse and keyboard. For those of us who fly with the mouse and only use the q and z keys, it flys like a truck and is difficult to turn smoothly. If you use the keys for turning then it turns easily. The BAS LB's are the only helicopter addon that I've ever had a problem flying so I'm not going to change the way I fly just for one addon as I've gotten very good at using the mouse for flying. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (teaCup @ Nov. 04 2002,11:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess that would be me.. Â To answer some of the questions: it's not tested yet, but you should be able to create and animate any kind of creatures (animals, monsters, objects..). The animations you've seen, were done in Maya, without motion capture (it shows..). And were exported to .rtm (the OFP animation format) with a small M(aya)E(mbedded)L(anguage) script. It's a makeshift solution (plenty of shortcomings, bugs) for making new animation, but it works. All you need is Maya, some knowledge of animation and patience. Cheers.<span id='postcolor'> Wow! Cool. But... Are you currently working on any animals and would it work in OFP? Here is what I'm worried about... the animals, I assume would have to be a "soldier" class but I wonder if would have to have the same # of "joints" as a person model in order for it to work in that class. At any rate, I REALLY hope you get it to work because it would be incredible to have even some simple moving animals. Or....if you can a simple bayonet thrust would be extremely useful. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N.o.R.S.u @ Nov. 03 2002,10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Try this: http://koti.mbnet.fi/vosku/addonit/units.zip (all UCE's unit addons fixed)<span id='postcolor'> Ouch...that link is super slow. Can anyone mirror it anywhere else? Thanks! Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Nov. 03 2002,17:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think my point was badly misunderstood. It is that extreme forms of islam, not islam in gerneral, need to be stopped. Same for any religion. Yeah, even though fundamentalist christians don't blow up buildings, they still shoot up abortion clinic. Anyway, thank you for the link.<span id='postcolor'> Ah ok. No problem. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Nov. 03 2002,03:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's the quiet ones who get far, OFPInternals released WRPedit which is still the staple tool for any island makers. And now they are doing this. Wonder what we can do with this as we don't have motion capture stuff?<span id='postcolor'> yeah I agree...the problem is often these programs by OFPinternals are not exactly user friendly. There may be ways of using the new animation program without a motion capture studio, but they need to release tutorials on how to do that. For example you would think something as simple as a bayonet thrust could be done without motion capture software and hardware. But if they can do break dancing then I'm sure they'll figure out how to do other animations. Animals though may be difficult without there being an "animal class". Hopefully eventually OFPinternals will release more info on exactly what the limitations of their software are. While it won't stop the "I want a horse" posts, it should at least allow animation designers who want to mess with the program to concentrate on what CAN be done rather then waste time on items that the current OFP engine won't allow for. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Grokk @ Nov. 03 2002,11:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Could this anim stuff mean that cavalry will be possible? Would be the last thing I need for my ww1 mod (except for close combat). Could be quite cool. Grokk p.s. What's motion capture?<span id='postcolor'> That would be very sweet! It could also be used for American Civil War simulations or perhaps the Nepoleonic Wars! The possibilities are endless especially if a good bayonet thrust animation was made along with some rifle/bayonet addons. Horses could also even be used to simulate modern combat in Afghanistan such when Northern Alliance General Dostum led a cavalry charge along with U.S. Special Forces against Taliban forces. So yeah horses would be extremely useful in a wide variety of missions and historical war mods for OFP. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MotherRussiaAK74 @ Nov. 03 2002,08:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rebels aren't terrorists. The people who took those hostages are.<span id='postcolor'> Yup I agree. Putting Terror and Islam in the same word (as PFC_Mike did) is also a very bad idea unless you're like Jerry Fallwell and are convinced that Islam is a religion of terror without actually bothering to talk to Muslims and learn about the religion. Also I question how PFC_Mike thinks playing OFP anti-terrorist missions will help resolve the issue. I actually make anti-terrorist missions for OFP, however I have no illusion that it's purely entertainment and fiction and in no way mirrors the true natures of conflicts around the world in which terrorism is involved. Those conflicts tend to be incredibly complex politically, socially, and militarily. Unfortunately much of the Western (especially American) public believes that it all will go away if we go and "kick all their asses". But fortunately people are starting to wake up and smell the coffee and are beginning to educate themselves. This is coming from someone who served 8 yrs with great pride in the U.S. Army Reserve. I love my country, I love the U.S. Army, and I believe being a patriot is speaking out with strong moral convictions against policies that threaten to do massive dammage to my country by giving in to the interests of oil/energy companies, the military industrial comlex, and fundamentalist Christian/Jewish religious groups who lobby politicians for their own twisted political agendas. Rather I believe America is the beacon of freedom, human rights, and tolerance for people of all religions, races, and nationalities. In doing so I believe those are the values we should demonstrate in our foreign policy rather then pushing our country towards what could become an ugly, bloody religious war based on horrendous misunderstandings (on both sides) and greed (over oil and enourmous profits for the military industrial complex here in the U.S.). Anyhoo.... I know this is totally off-topic. But I think it was proper to show that not all Americas are running around on the streets yelling "KILL THE TOWELHEADS", and that most of us can distinguish reality from fantasy (OFP). With that said, my upcoming OFP:R mission will be about Russians forces fighting against a fictional radical Islamic group. But I suppose I'm going to have to write a lengthy "read me" file or intro information so impressionable people don't get the wrong idea and think that the mission is all about killing Muslims. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Nov. 03 2002,06:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think he was talking about Frandsen's. I personally think they're excellent, but he doesn't. Check out the beta testing addons section of the OFPEC forum. A guy calling himself Cat-Shit one has some Marines for download.<span id='postcolor'> I also thought Frandsen's Marines are excellent. They have nice big ruck sacks, realistic looking Kevlar helmets, realistic caps, and decent textures. Their uniforms could maybe be a little more baggy and there could be some models with their sleeves rolled up Marine style, but other then that I think's Frandsens Marines are damn good. Do you have a URL to Cat-Shit's Marines? Or I guess I should ask are they worth downloading or even bothering to look for? Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (netops2001 @ Nov. 01 2002,21:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">humm thought i'd add my two cents on this issue of packing eight people into the helo. I'm a crew member in a MD500D so i have some experiance with these birds. The typical allowable payload in HIGE (Hover In Ground Effect) is 775lbs that is with full fuel and i think the fixed reduction weight of 120lbs is calculated in there to so we will take it out, it is comman practice to reduce fuel in order to increase payload weight. But in OPF ya normaly start with full fuel in your vehical. So we have 895lbs to work with by the way thats if we are takingoff below 5000ft elevation the higher ya go the less payload you can lift. So here's how it pans out I weight 185 when i fly with my gear 20 pound pack I guessing that Spec ops probably carry about 10lbs of gear on a fast insurtion mission someone correct me if i'm wrong, but they probably weight a little more than me too so i'm gonna use 185 as a base weight for the passangers. and 170 for the pilot. So if we have one pilot and 4 Spec ops on the out side racks thats 910lbs you already have to dump some fuel. Now if ya put 8 men in there like was suggested thats 1465lbs and  you arn't going any where.<span id='postcolor'> All I know is that on the training vidoes I've seen I routinely see them carrying 6 commandos. I yet to see a training operation where they were only carrying 4 commandos. Plus in practical terms in OFP, it's a lot nicer to insert a 6 man team then just 4 men. Two extra men can make all the difference in covert ops or hostage extraction missions. It should be left up to the mission maker to decide whether to use 4 commandos or 6 commandos. Also the 5 and 6 slot is good for hostage rescues. For example, if you're rescuing two downed pilots you can insert a 4 man team with the Little Bird and when the pilots are rescued they can board the MH-6 Little Bird along with the SF team during the extraction. So to the Ballistics guys, please try and allow for 6 men. There's no need to put such limitations on mission makers. Again that's not a demand... just practical ideas that I hope you'll consider. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Nov. 01 2002,08:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S_Z @ Oct. 31 2002,21:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have an XP 1900+, 512Mb and a geforce2 card and as I said before I also think the two little birds are handling very differently so I don’t think hardware is the problem. If I’m going forward and start turning(with keyboard) BAS little birds starts to spin(nose down) after a little while and crash to the ground, that doesn’t happen with drakkhens lb.<span id='postcolor'> i have an XP 2000+ 512mb and geforce 4 and im getting the same results, thats the same test i did to find out the agility/manouverability so it looks like its not just me, either that or its related to our similar machines, as i found drakkens rather sluggish<span id='postcolor'> Ok... I found out what the problem is guys. Ok here it is: When I fly, I fly using the mouse and only use the keyboard for the "Q" and "Z" keys for taking off and landing. If you fly Drakkens MH-6 with the mouse it is MUCH smoother flying. However you fly the Ballistics MH-6 with a mouse it is very rough and you have to keep dragging the mouse to the side in order to get it to turn. However.... when you use the keyboard it does indeed turn faster then Drakken's MH-6. I know you will say, "Well then use your keyboard to fly" but that is a bit difficult when I have been using the mouse to fly and drive since the OFP demo came out and I don't think I'm going to relearn how to fly just for one addon as I've become extremely good at flying with the mouse and just the q and z keys. To me that just feels much more natural, at least for myself. Also other MAJOR issues I just noticed. Your MH-6's (the Ballistics MH-6's) only carry 4 men! In real life they carry 6 men. Drakken's also carries 6 men as does Adammo's MH-6. Finally as someone else mentioned, you can't shoot the passengers. On Drakken's and Adammo's you can shoot the guys riding on the benches. Also like yours the enemy machine gunners shoot at them as well. So right now I'm afraid that overall Drakken's bird in my own opinion at least, is still the better MH-6. But whether you change the Little Birds is up to you guys. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>