miles teg

I think that the Russian DShK 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun is one weapon that is BADLY needed!!! Right now the Russian forces are still using an American M2 Browning .50 cal machine gun which is extremely unrealistic. I'm surprised that nobody has yet to make a DShK. Also the DShk is used by guerilla forces all over the world. An oldie but goodie. Other weapons that might be nice could include: The Walther WA 2000 bullpup style sniper rifle. A M-24 Sniper rifle. The Chinese Norinco SKS assault rifle in sniper configuration. The McMillan .50 cal sniper rifle (the one used by the Canadian snipers for the world record in distance for a combat kill in Afghanistan). Ruger .22 target pistol with silencer. Ruger 10/22 rifle (in tactical configuration) with extended banana clip. A M16 rifle with a working bayonet. Daewoo K2A2 Assault rifle Savage 110 tactical sniper rifle Claymore mines (if the OFP engine allows it). Bangalore Torpedoes (and perhaps a concertina wire object that actually blows up or out of the way when you set off explosives next to it). M16A2 "Bouncing Betty" land mines... really any AP mines. SMAW anti-tank rocket. Dragon portable guided AT missile. Milan AT missile. AT-3 Suitcase Swatter missile (Russian). Ak-47 with optical sites. Galil rifles. A silenced pistol of any type. A flame thrower (I guess a Flame thrower unit) using that old script that someone made awhile back that used the MM-1 as a flamethrower....but updated to use the new flame object for better realism. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Sep. 30 2002,11:43)</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">Without any flight data you are merely speculating so it's useless to say "my country's airplane is better then yours" based on nothing but speculation.  <span id='postcolor'> Well, none of that aircraft has been designed in my country, so i'm completely objective about this  If you want, you can search for reports of the Su-37's performance in the Farnborough air show. Lot's of recognized experts (including aircraft designers, NATO fighter pilots, etc) wrote reports about it. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">However nobody has ever seen a F22 do any complex maneuvers nor does anyone have access to data on the flight characteristics of the F22 other then speed and thrust to weight ratios. <span id='postcolor'> Then using your own reasoning, i could say that the F-22 is be unable to do any complex maneuvers because i haven't seen it perform any. We have seen the Su-37 performing that impressive maneuvers that even aircraft designed specificaly to be ultra-maneuverable (X-29 FSW, X-31 with 3d thrust vectoring) can't do. The F-22 has been designed to be very maneuverable, but stealth is more important in the design than maneuverability. The X-31 would most likely kick it's ass in a dogfight. This is from the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The X-31's flight-control system also went through five major software changes during its years at Dryden, but with the changes and modifications, the program became extremely successful. In addition to simply achieving controllable maneuvering flight at angles of attack up to 70 degrees, the aircraft clearly demonstrated the tactical advantage thrust-vectoring could give a fighter. Simulator experiments predicted that the X-31 would have a 3:1 kill ratio. In actual combat maneuvers against an F-18 fighter, however, the X-31 won approximately 30 dogfight engagements for every one it lost. It also demonstrated maneuvers no other aircraft was able to do, including one named after program originator Wolfgang Herbst. The "Herbst maneuver" is a rapid, 180-degree turn at an extremely high angle of attack, using the X-31's post-stall maneuverability characteristics. <span id='postcolor'> The X-31 is a smallish aircraft, with very little wing surface, but thrust vectoring enabled it to have a 30:1 success rate against the F/A-18. The Su-37 is a big fighter (over 30 tons), like the F-22. They both have huge wing surface, fly-by-wire controls, and extremely powerful engines. But the F-22 has been designed for stealth over maneuverability, and the sukhoi has been designed to be a world beater in dogfights. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that you may all be getting the Su-37 mixed up with the S-37<span id='postcolor'> Nope, i know they are different aircraft. It would be interesting to see a S-37 with the Su-37's thrust vectoring engines, though. Forward swept wings and powerful 3d thrust vectoring engines combined in an aircraft with advanced fly-by-wire, the results could be impressive!<span id='postcolor'> I'm not arguing about the data available on the SU-37.  There's tons of that because the Russians are trying to sell them to other countries and are pushing them really hard. The F-22 is another matter.  Interesting logic you have that by the absense of data you can come to the conclusion that the F22 is inferior without any data supporting your conclusion that the stealth characteristics of the F-22 negatively effect the aircraft's maneuverability.  Maybe it does maybe it doesn't.  But to represent speculation as fact is what I think is stupid. The only fact is that nobody, outside U.S. government agencies and military, knows what the F22's flight characteristics are, and unless you are a aeronautical engineer, I doubt that anyone on this board has the expertise to make such conclusions that the F-22 is in fact inferior in maneuverability (or other characteristics) then any other modern fighter aircraft.  Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Sep. 30 2002,01:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">actually he said car-14, he just edited it after my post <span id='postcolor'> Oh. LOL! Don't you just love the ability to edit? LOL! Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Sep. 29 2002,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">car-14? what the hell is that?<span id='postcolor'> Car-15 was what he said... but basically it's part of the Colt family of M16 rifles and is very similar to the M4. For more info go to: http://world.guns.ru/assault/as50-e.htm However personally I would not want to see one of these in desert cammo...looks kinda cheezy...most of the ones I've seen used in desert enviornments are just the standard black color. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Sep. 28 2002,21:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Su-27 most likely can't out-turn a F-22, but i wasn't talking about the 27, i was talking about the Su-37. Take a look at this page: http://wmilitary.neurok.ru/su37/su37display.html There is only one aircraft in the world that can do that maneuvers, the Su-37. Lot's of parts of the F-22 project are classified, but experts can tell more or less accurately the performance of the aircraft without having access to that data. The only aircraft that can compare to the Su-37 is the X-31 prototype.<span id='postcolor'> Possibly. Â But again NONE OF US KNOW. Â Without any flight data you are merely speculating so it's useless to say "my country's airplane is better then yours" based on nothing but speculation. Â The Su-37 and the F-22 both have thrust vectoring engines while the Su-37 has front wing canards which may give it a slight edge in maneuverability (or maybe not). Â However nobody has ever seen a F22 do any complex maneuvers nor does anyone have access to data on the flight characteristics of the F22 other then speed and thrust to weight ratios. Â Maybe with that data you can work out use some fancy aeronautical flight testing software to simulate the flight characteristics of the F22 but to my knowledge nobody has done this. Â If your "experts" have done this, please educate me and point me to some URL's where these experts have gone into detail concerning their simulated flight models of the F22 (if they even bothered to create any that is). So my point is that it's a stupid arguement unless you have more evidence. Â They're both cool and extremely capable aircraft and both are most likely highly maneuverable but it's impossible to say one is better then the other without having more information on them. Â Otherwise it's just pointless to continue to say that the F22 is inferior to anything unless the point of your arguement is just to piss people off by arguing a point that can not be won logically without information to back up that arguement. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles @ Sep. 28 2002,21:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The f22 has slower engines (~mach 1.7) however it can sustain this for huge periods because they cruise at that speed without afterburners. Â The su27 probably has the normal mach 2 top speed with afterburner, but it cant sustain it.<span id='postcolor'> The speed does not matter as much when it comes to maneuverability. One of the main factors is thrust to weight ratio along with the amount of lift it's wings and control surfaces generate and the ability of the aircraft to handle at extremely slow speeds. At high speeds other factors come into play such as the design of the pilot's seat, his flight suit bladders for controlling blood flow, and the endurance of the pilot concerning how many "G's" the pilot can withstand before blacking (or reding) out. However in this modern age, speed is only useful for getting to a target quickly and getting out of a hostile area quickly. At low speeds, state of the art fire control systems and missiles can destroy most enemy aircraft even if the aircraft from which the weapons are fired is flying very slow. It often boils down to how effective the ECM systems are on an aircraft, how maneuverable an aircraft is, and how well a pilot is able to effectively use counter-measures along with evasive action against enemy missiles and cannon fire. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Sep. 28 2002,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Su27 can out maneouvre the F22 in some aspects. The Cobra is a good example. However the Cobra is only good for airshows, in a ACM environment losing airspeed like that invites a seeker up the tail.<span id='postcolor'> Uh, ok, but have you ever seen a F22 put through it's paces or are you just basing your information from playing flight simulators? Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (nolips71 @ Sep. 29 2002,22:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">where as we are<span id='postcolor'> All the more reason to cooperate with them. Letting them use your MOD team's island at least would be a nice olive branch that perhaps would make them more willing to allow your MOD team to use their addons. A little diplomacy can go a long ways. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

I just wanted to mention that so far those U.S. Forces addons are looking fairly good, although I wanted to point out a few things. Â On the Army Rangers, I noticed that the soldier is wearing a Gulf War era "Chocolate Chips" type camoflage cover on his kevlar helmet, yet the rest of his uniform does not match. Â Also Army Rangers normally don't run around not wearing a hat or helmet. Â Only Special Forces (Green Berets) and Delta Force operators can generally get away with not wearing a cover as they are allowed greater freedom regarding uniforms and physical appearance due to the nature of their missions. Â Â Rangers are still closer to the regular Army in how they operate (they are the shock troops of the U.S. Army) and still conform to Army regulations. Â In addition the Army Rangers should have their sleeves rolled down as they generally rarely roll up their sleeves in desert enviornments. Â The desert uniforms are designed to have baggy sleeves that allow air to circulate through the uniform, plus generally in a tactical situation, sleeves are kept rolled down. Finally the Delta Force operators (and maybe Rangers) should have headset radios. Â It also would be very nice if you could make either the Delta Force Commandos and/or the SAS commandos with the arab style head scarves like the KSK troops in the HK MOD. Â For some outstanding pics of U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan as well as other U.S. military units check out this page at: http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/album01 Hopefully some of those pics will give your team some more ideas. Â My hope is that those of you working on this mod for Lost Brothers will do the units accurately. After all, why bother doing so much hard work on these units if they are not accurate? Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (blackdog~ @ Sep. 29 2002,17:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am a DSL user and I don't mind downloading big files. Office XP was a big file (:)), some little campaign is tiny! But I have to disagree with you guys... if they combine their models it will look out of place and they won't match the same texturing standard as eachother do, and the model detail might suck, which makes it better to have them both make their own models so we can pick & choose.<span id='postcolor'> I agree... from a mission making perspective it's easy for me to pick and choose which I like and which I don't like. But that also means that I won't be playing either of their campaigns. I'd rather just make my own minus all the political crap. I'd be more interested in making a campaign where you take turns taking both sides in the battles. For example in one mission of the campaign you are a British SAS commando unit doing a recon mission and calling in Naval gunfire. On the next mission you are playing the same mission but you are on the receiving end of the gunfire and you have to hunt down the SAS lads who are calling in the fire on your positions, or perhaps you are a Argentinian Air Force pilot flying a Mirage to try and take out the British ships bombarding the island. Probably wouldn't be popular with British or Argentinian players but others might like it. But then of coarse both MOD teams would probably give me hell about using their addons and islands. I guess the typical OFP player (who doesn't make missions themselves), unless they have tons of RAM in their computer, will have to decide which MOD to use and thus "choose sides". Kinda sad really. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Sep. 28 2002,18:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RaptorAce @ Sep. 28 2002,17:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1st, No. Â No US planes were lost to enemy planes during all of Desert Shield and Desert Storm 2nd, the Su-37 is only used for show and hasnt (and as far as i know wont) be put into production. Â The Flanker more likely to go into production will be the Su-33 or Su-35 which doesnt have TV, plus with the F-22's advanced systems and stealth, it would probably kill the flanker if they were in a fight simply because it'd get into range before the flanker would see it. Â And yeah, that cobra maneuver is cool, but not really useful in a dogfight This was a reply to Sadico.<span id='postcolor'> Funny, i had read years ago that a F/A-18 was shot down by a Mig-25, but now i can't find any confirmation. Looks like it wasn't true. The Su-37 and Su-35 are not currently in production, and i'm sure they won't be in service with the Russian Air Force anytime soon (maybe never), but they have been offered for export. There is a Su-30 variant with 3d vectoring engines too, and i think it has been already sold to India. China bought Su-27's some years ago and is interested in buying the new variants. You are right though, the F-22 should be able to destroy the Sukhoi from long range, but we don't really know how stealthy it is. That cobra maneuver is only an example of the maneuvers that can be done with that aircraft, in a dogfight the 37 would out-turn the F-22 quite easily, and if you combine that with a reaward facing radar, a helmet mounted sight and the AA-11 missiles you have possibly the best dogfighter in the world.<span id='postcolor'> Just curious but how do you know the Su-27 would outturn a F22? I keep hearing people say this, but how does anyone know? The F-22 has a huge wing area and thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles, something the Su-27 does not. The F-22 also has incredible thrust to weight ratio. More then likely it's capable of any of the same manuevers that a Su-27 could do. But the again I don't know for sure either. My point is that nobody knows unless you got access to the flight data from the F22. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Matthijs @ Sep. 28 2002,17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The big issue: realism versus compatability... The next release of the C7 series will have some nifty features, as never seen before in Operation Flashpoint. Keep posted!<span id='postcolor'> Make it realistic.... however if you can make the rifles a bit smaller. They look huge in the game....more like 7.62mmNATO rifles or something. Of coarse the BIS M16's in OFP in general look too bulky. However it can be done. KKB made an outstanding M4 that had the correct size of the weapon and looked WAAAY more realistic (in size that is) then any other M4 or M16 that I have seen since in OFP. So it can be done if you want to play around with that idea. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (drewb99 @ Sep. 28 2002,030)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The F22's been in development so long it can be outperformed by an F15E. Give it up on the F22 being the superior aircraft.<span id='postcolor'> Uh.... Â ok.... Â please tell me where you found published reputable information on the F-22's flight characteristics? Yeah I'm American, but I don't really care to see a F22 in OFP unless there's nothing else interesting for addonmakers to create. Â However, I think the whole "Our Eurofighters are better then your Raptors!" arguement is incredibly stupid considering the fact that the data regarding the performance of the Raptor is classified. Â However it is known that it does contain advancement avionics, thrust vectoring exhaust nozzles (for high angle-of-attack maneauvers), a large wing area (again helpful in increasing lift area and maneuverability) and advanced stealth characteristics. Â I seriously doubt that any of the F-15 variants can outperform it, although certainly the Eurofighter and similar modern next-generation fighter aircraft (like the latest generation of Sukoi air-superiority aircraft) may equal or exceed it in performance at least in some aspects of the Raptor's performance. Â But which aspects remain unknown. Â The F-22 from all appearances however seems to contain the best combination of features found in the latest generation of fighter aircraft. So please before anyone spouts out how terrible a particular aircraft is, please post where you got that information from, otherwise don't post "mine is bigger then yours" crap. Â For info on the Raptor go to: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22features.html With that said, if anyone wants to make a F22 Raptor, cool then let them if that is something THEY want, but I don't think most mission designers would find it particularly useful other then as something cool to look at (eye candy). Â I'd rather see something more uselful like a Su-24 Fencer and a F-111 Aardvark (both very similar aircraft).... Â and of coarse more attack aircraft like the A1 Skyraider cuz right now I'm having TONS of fun with the OV-10 Bronco due to its superb handling, excellent modelling/texturing and awesome weapon layouts. Â A RAF Jaguar ground attack aircraft would also be very cool! Â Jaguars were extensively used during the Gulf War by several countries. Also when is someone going to make a RAF version of the G8 Tornado? Â If anyone does this and if anyone is able to lower the point of aim of the Tornado's cannon/rockets (so that the AI pilot doesn't swoop down so low) I can give them the .cpp script I made for getting the AI to properly use the JP.233 sub-munitions dispenser. Â On the current G8 the point of aim is too high which I think is what causes it to attack at extremely low levels. Â While this looks cool, the AI pilots die when they use the sub-munitions dispenser because the resulting explosions usually destroy the aircraft. Â Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Sep. 28 2002,13:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A few pointers: The nose area looks odd, the part where the wings attach to the fuselage ... cant be right and the tail looks like it has a crack in it. But seeing how this is a beta i suppose you are aware of it.<span id='postcolor'> yeah I agree...those nose on the plane looks really bizarre...kinda like they put the cockpit window too low or something. Â However other then that and the rough textures, the cockpit is amazing, the sound is excellent, and the handling of the aircraft is superb!!! Maybe Kodyak might be ask the maker of the C17 for some ideas on to make his big Antonov cargo plane fly better. Below are some pics of the real thing. Notice how different the cockpit and nose looks compared to the OFP addon. Â These pics are from: http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Globemaster.html ___ Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (zippyo @ Sep. 27 2002,17:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ayyyeeeehaaaaaa......Well once again as compliments of fw200 I'm proud to show you all the evolution of my first model's (hopefully many more to follow) evolution. I'm open to suggestions on the SPRAY topic....good ideas somin' old..or new...this has to be awesome....just like OFP... cheers zip<span id='postcolor'> I have a little script that I made that uses some addons from that Nuke addon that Vikingo uses for the smoke. But I need to do some experimenting to make sure I know exactly which one of the addons is needed to make it work. The only bad thing however is that it can't be triggered by pressing the fire button. Kegetys made a M113 that did that. Perhaps he can give you some ideas on how to implement that same capability onto your cropduster. That would be very cool. Some of the other .cpp script experts here might also have some ideas. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JAP @ Sep. 27 2002,14:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Sep. 27 2002,03:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well there should be a line of just how much is needed...having a 'posh' car for someone important in a mission is fine...having a convertible is fine, but now where every single car genre has 4-5 addons its just getting ridiculous, i mean come on people complained when there were 4-5 jets (where most of them had different roles, even if they all werent suited to ofp) if they are in desperate need to make cars there are lots that are military minded that would actually benefit games, like a pickup with an mg or a military jeep as this is the best area in ofp for cars same with planes, the area ofp was made to cater for was close air support like the SU-25 and A-10, anyway thats just the opinion of a rambling fool <span id='postcolor'> Well you re right. But how many missions do we see with all those new planes and cars ? Almost none. Â Or made for their own use only. So no need to let it get to you hehe. ( like i did with all the planes .. ) I only use 1 plane and that s the Tornado. Now choppers is a different thing ( hint hint )<span id='postcolor'> Likewise the Tornado is one of the few planes that stays in my addons folder. Â I also use the A4 Skyhawk (the model with the rockets), Adammo's C130, and the OV-10 Bronco. The A4 with the rockets is great for Vietnam missions. I also have a seperate OFP directory for my WWII/Vietnam war mods, most of which are outstanding. I can't wait until Lawrie and Co. put out their new WWII units with all-Oxygen made weapons. That will be sweet. I haven't downloaded any of Mechanic's cars cuz I have no use for them even though I'm sure they are very cool and everything. Â The ones that stay are the ones that can be used in very cool and realistic missions. I do hope that Mechanic will make more useful military addons because obviously he has a lot of talent modelling and texturing. At least I wish he would make some Land Rovers for example and in different configurations (like SAS fast attack versions of the Land Rover) and maybe various wheeled and tracked armored vehicles. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Sep. 27 2002,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What OFP needs in terms of planes is a A-1 Skyraider from the Vietnam era loaded with napalm and rockets. Slow enough to be able to aim effictivly! The Bronco is a great add-on, but its a two seater affair so in SP it can get hard to attack targets. A-1 is single seater joy.<span id='postcolor'> I agree, a F22 would never take up memory space in my addon directory that could be used for other much cooler addons like a A1 Skyraider. I agree that the A1 Skyraider would be MUCH more appropriate for OFP. I'm having TONS of fun with the OV-10 Bronco addon, so I can definitely see how a A1 would be PERFECT for OFP for use in Vietnam mods. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Sep. 24 2002,14:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If OFP:R supports moving slides, why didn't BIS make the official handguns with moving slide??<span id='postcolor'> I don't think there is a moving slide on this one unless I'm not seeing it because it happens so fast or because it has something to do with the resolution of the textures. But all other weapon animations have worked for me so I don't think that's it. But I suppose that technically it is possible although even if it was you probably wouldn't see it except perhaps when you reloaded the weapon kinda like the revolving cylinders on Kegetys's revolvers. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (vade_101 @ Sep. 23 2002,23:32)</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">But you might want to ask the Taiwan guys for permission or make the .pbo a different name at least in addition to giving the credit to the original makers of the models.<span id='postcolor'> I think (given the pack is on the taiwan workshop site, and andy's email is linked there) he is one of the taiwan guys <span id='postcolor'> Ah ok. I didn't see any indicator that he was a member of that team, but if he is then that's cool. I'm looking forward to his new version of the pack. I also agree what someone else said about the FNMAG (M240). That one is still from the original non-Oxygen made version released along time ago. I believe it was a heavily modified PK machine gun model. It would be nice if they made a completely new M240 model. The SAW's I think look good though except for them being too big which is why I'm really looking forward to their new smaller version. That's one of the great things about the SAW....it's nice and small (and thus rather light in weight) while packing a nice punch. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USMC Sniper @ Sep. 23 2002,21:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Cheack out this for a 1911 by the taiwan team! It has a slide that flies back when you fire too! Â Â <span id='postcolor'> I don't see the slide moving on it. Maybe my eye isn't fast enough to see it, but if it does then I don't notice the slide moving. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MarcusJClifford @ Sep. 23 2002,20:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also can you reduce the muzzle flash, its impossible to fire / aim when using scope view (as you would realistically). The real minigun has very little muzzle flash<span id='postcolor'> I agree also. But I just wanted to add that it would be VERY cool if it had a gun sight like the M60 on the SEB Spec Ops UH-1 Huey helicopter addon. As it is now it is VERY difficult to engage targets below the helicopter (not directly below but tilting the minigun at a steep angle) because the gun just gets in the way and the target can't be seen. But I agree that the damage level of the bullets is a way too high. The real life GAU-2 would only scratch the paint of a T-80. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (andylee054 @ Sep. 23 2002,04:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hi every one, I remodeled and retextured those babies. but I cann't fixed the speed of the belt. I will publish them again soon and asking for help if any one can help for speeding up the belt. thanks all the suggustions anyway. :-)<span id='postcolor'> Kewl! But you might want to ask the Taiwan guys for permission or make the .pbo a different name at least in addition to giving the credit to the original makers of the models. I wouldn't worry about the belt thing though. I think it's fine. I'm greatly looking forward to your improved version. Oh...also please add a red dot scope sight instead of the M21 site that they use. Thx Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Sep. 22 2002,20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">miles... you do realise what AI means? its actually Artificial Imbecile, not intelligence. we tried making the plane such that the ai would fly it better, it involved basically turning it into an a10 again.... I think you can agree with me that that is NOT an option, so the AI had to come second. The first thing i tried was putting a turret under the belly of the bronco.. there is a bronco version with 20mm vulcan on a turret, similar to the one found under the apache. OFP refuses to make the turret rotate, so thats that, end of line.<span id='postcolor'> Dude, no need to get hostile. I didn't know those things so forgive me for putting out ideas. I was not attacking your hard work in any way or form. I just thought that it might be ideas to try out. But maybe I just misread your reply. Anyhoo... I think your team's Bronco is absolutely awesome. However I have a question. You say that the turret didn't turn...but could the cannon sites be moved and aimed by the gunner? What I'm getting at is not putting a turret on the OV-10 but putting side mounted weapons on Adammo's C130. Even if the weapons couldn't move it would still be cool to be able to aim them from a gunner position inside the aircraft where you just hit the "V" key to get the weapon sites. But it's cool if you think it's a stupid idea. Perhaps other addon makers might want to give it a try if they want to see an AC-130 gunship. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frugo_PL @ Sep. 22 2002,19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Indeed, that would be nice, don't forget a sixshooter too!<span id='postcolor'> Kegetys made a Smith & Wesson revolver addon that is excellent and even has a rotating cylinder on the revolvers. Also there is a Tommy gun in the WWII mods, although without a drum magazine. It uses a straight clip. However it's a modified AK and not made in Oxygen. I believe one of the WWII mod teams is working on a Oxygen based weapon pack that will be in the next WWII unit addon pack. Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>

First off, like everyone else I agree that it is an OUTSTANDING addon, perhaps the best aircraft since the G8 Tornado. However a few problems. I can't seem to get the AI pilots to engage targets with rockets...they fire a few rockets sometimes but they fire them up in the air or way past the target. They do however drop bombs very accurately and they're fairly accurate with the 20mm cannon. The sound on the 20mm cannon pod could be improved a bit though (the sound from the G8 Tornado is more realistic for example). Other then that the aircraft handles very well, but tight turns stall the aircraft even with the throttle maxed out and flaps down...but that happens with most of the planes it seems. I wish BIS would fix that. Also I have a question: This is the first plane I've seen with a gunner. I thought it was impossible to add a gunner to a plane. Does this mean that a turret can be added to a plane? For example could a Russian Antonov An-12 Cub cargo plane (similar to a C130 but with a rear gun turret) be made with a rear gun turret that moves around? Also does this mean that an AC-130 could be made (modified from Adammo's C130) with 20mm, 40mm, and 105mm cannons that can be moved up and down and targeted by a gunner?? If so that is FANTASTIC NEWS!!! I would HIGHLY recommend that you guys consider an AC-130 for your next project based off of Adammo's C130 (which kicks ass IMHO). Anyhoo, the OV-10 simply rocks and thanks also for adding a Resistance version also without the USMC markings (although I think the Resistance version is using USMC cammo patterns). At least with the Resistance version I can use them to simulate Special Ops CIA/DynCorp missions. However I can use the USMC (west) version with Frandsen's USMC addon so that's pretty cool. Keep up the excellent work guys! Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD>