MrLaggy

But I can't find any combination of settings that actually lets me control my gun. Why not, like, release a game which just lets you control it with the default settings? I've played through OFP numerous times and never had this kind of problem there. It feels like the gun is attached to me with rubber bands or something.

Still, the mission editor is handy for exploring the island .

So is there a reason why the gun keeps moving for half a second after I stop moving the mouse? That makes shooting things almost impossible, by the time I've managed to get the sights on them the AIs have killed them.

Because there's no other war game I know of which would give my crack team of commandos the option of stealing a Skoda and driving right past the guards to the secret base they're supposed to blow up, if they don't feel like creeping through the woods Oh, and don't forget the final mission of the original campaign, that's a pretty unusual one for a shooting game. (Almost finished the original campaign again after buying the GOTY edition..)

It's not a sad day, I hadn't played OFP for a year or more until I saw that 7.99 deal at Play... now I have both expansions to work my way through .

Yeah, try cutting the AGP aperture down to 32MB if it's currently set to a higher number: that's the only thing that worked for me.

Ok, hadn't played OFP for ages, saw the GOTY edition selling cheap online, so I bought a copy (cheaper than buying all the add-on packs for the original version). Installed it, ran it... oh. With hardware T&L off I get a green screen and music. With hardware T&L on I get the ground with almost-white textures and music (no menu overlay, people or objects). Running 'classic' OFP with hardware T&L it drops back to the desktop, running 'classic' without hardware T&L I get a green screen and music. Running the original OFP demo which I still had on this machine, it's fine. P4-2.4GHz, XP Pro with latest updates, Radeon 9500 Pro 128MB, DX9.0b, Catalyst 3.6. and 3.7 drivers (updated to 3.7 just in case after 3.6 had the same problems), 845PE chipset, 1GB RAM, no overclocking or registry tweaks. Every other game I play runs fine on this machine, only OFP has problems. It's a fresh install straight off the CDs, with no extra non-BIS addons. I did try the ALT-TAB suggestion, but it makes no difference. I also went back to the 'autodetect' settings, and it made no difference. Installed the 1.91 upgrade on the CD and again that makes no difference. Uninstalled OFP and reinstalled, no difference. Reinstalled DX9b, no difference. Saw a message saying that Daemon Tools could cause problems (I use this machine for DVD authoring so I use it to test DVD images before burning them), uninstalled that and made no difference. EDIT: Ok, I saw another suggestion to reduce AGP aperture size to 32MB. I cut mine from 256MB to 32MB and, tadaa, OFP magically started working. Hopefully that may provide some pointers as to why these problems are happening: I don't really want to have to keep rebooting and changing the aperture size to run OFP, as Everquest runs better with a 256MB aperture to stuff all its textures into when the card memory overflows.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for Denoir's comment on following orders. Since he has actually done just that, followed orders, for a living I assume he has actually given it a lot of thought.<span id='postcolor'> And how many soldiers in the West today have actually fought in a real war where they did face the prospect of taking massive casualties? There's no comparison between 'peace-keeping' duties today and invading a nation which was determined to fight to the bitter end.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but had I been ordered, I would have done it period. Death by the hands of the enemy is an occupational hazard in the military. You have to accept that or you will be a worthless soldier.<span id='postcolor'> Easy to say when you're _not_ facing the prospect of dying in the morning; and you're ignoring the fact that very few of these people were volunteer soldiers, most were conscripts who were civilians not long before. How does being drafted magically turn you into a "legitimate" target, when the day before you were a civilian? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nuking cities can hardly be described as "defensive".<span id='postcolor'> It certainly can when the nation in question declared war on you, and when the people living there are building weapons to use against you. While I largely agree that America pushed Japan into war, deliberately or accidentally, the fact remains that Germany and Japan were the ones who declared war, not America; admittedly Britain did declare war on Germany, but only after they'd invaded their allies. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That however does not say automatically that anything that the allied did was good as you are trying to put it.<span id='postcolor'> Where did I say any such thing? Having said that WWII should never have been fought, that Pearl Harbor was likely a deliberate attempt by the US government to pull America into a wider war and that the US should have dropped its stupid demand for unconditional surrender to end the war much earlier without the use of nuclear weapons, you might think that people would realise that I'm far from believing that "anything the allies did was good". </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is an extremely naÄf view of the world you have.<span id='postcolor'> And I think it's extremely naive to expect people to worry about moral niceties in the middle of a total, global, industrialised war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then why didnt all Japanese people kill themselves after a surrender was a fact?<span id='postcolor'> Because the Americans finally dropped their demand for an _unconditional_ surrender; they would have surrendered much earlier if they had been allowed to negotiate terms they could live with.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A soldier who is happy to live at the expense of murdering civilians is only worth my utter contempt<span id='postcolor'> You, of course, would have volunteered to be the first off the boats for the invasion? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This little "story" could have easily been replaced of a German grandfather who is telling his grandchild how good it was that so many Russian civilians were massacred because otherwise he might have been forced to go to the eastern front and would probably have been killed there.<span id='postcolor'> If you can't see the difference between a war of aggression by Germany and a largely defensive war by the allies, well...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About 68 percent of Hiroshima were completely destroyed by the bombing, another 24 percent were damaged.<span id='postcolor'> And that relates to your claim that it was "blown to dust and sealed for decades", how exactly? Do you really believe that no-one was allowed back in Hiroshima for decades after the attack?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What utter fascist propaganda. I can't believe you postet that<span id='postcolor'> That you regard such comments as "fascist propaganda" says more about your mindset than about the person who posted it; why do you hate the allied troops so much that you'd like to have seen hundreds of thousands of them killed in an invasion?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. navy was not being "decimated" by kamikaze attacks,<span id='postcolor'> Conceded up to a point, as I've been checking the dates on the web, and most of the attacks were over by August; presumably because the fleet was far enough offshore that they couldn't be reached by anything that was an effective weapon. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">since these attacks were rarely succesfull.<span id='postcolor'> That, however, is silly: in June alone they sunk 30-odd ships and damaged hundreds more. Sure, they had only about a 10% success rate in attacks, but they were probably the single most effective anti-ship weapon the allies faced during the whole of WWII. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How long do you think those japs would have been able to sit in their island inside a naval blockade?<span id='postcolor'> A long time, while building up their weapons ready for an invasion. Certainly longer than the allied forces could maintain a naval blockade when the population wanted their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands home. I don't think you have any idea of the mindset of the Japanese at the time; which is hardly surprising when the allied troops who fought them could barely understand it themselves... most would rather die than surrender unconditionally. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The truth is that you had to go for a quick victory in order to please the voting masses back home.<span id='postcolor'> Uh, yes. What else did you expect them to do? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A few hundred thousand dead slit-eyes is a small price to pay for popularity figures.<span id='postcolor'> The choice was not nuclear attack or life; the choice was death by nuclear attack or death by conventional attack. Even if the US government had decided not to use nukes, there's no way they would have stopped conventional attacks prior to an invasion. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Killing 100s of thousands of civvies with nukes is an atrocity, whatever the justification.<span id='postcolor'> Why? Those people were building the weapons which would have been used against allied forces, and would have done whatever they could to kill those forces themselves in the event of an invasion; the distinction between 'soldier' and 'civilian' is a minor one in a total war like WWII.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is the most elementary strategy there is: Avoid engaging the enemy and encircle him instead. Then you just sit it out. This is the way to avoid casualties.<span id='postcolor'> Now explain how you're supposed to "sit it out" when your navy is being decimated by kamikaze attacks? And then explain how you'd tell the population at home that you know they've been fighting a total war for years and are tired of the whole thing, you know their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons are being killed daily in the Pacific, but you've decided to sit and wait for as long as neccesary because it would be awful to use nuclear weapons on the cities which are building the weapons being used against you. It's also worth remembering that shortly before the bombs were dropped the US or Canadian navy captured a U-boat on its way to Japan with a cargo of radioactive materials (the full details have never been officially released, so there's still a lot of debate as to what exactly it was), which apparently scared the hell out of the US military chiefs. Knowing that, why would any rational leader sit and wait for the Japanese to use nuclear weapons (either actual fission bombs or simpler radiation weapons) against them?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the case of Hiroshima we dont know what would happened if not the atomic-bomb would have been used, but what we know is that an entire city was blown to dust and sealed for decades.<span id='postcolor'> Hiroshima was "blown to dust and sealed for decades"? If you believe that, I can't but wonder precisely what planet you're living on...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If America had shown the Japanese what the bombs could do first, and Japan still did not surrender, then they would be more justified.<span id='postcolor'> Meanwhile, allied soldiers and sailors would have been killed, and ships sunk, by kamikaze attacks; all in the hope that they could come up with a "demonstration" convincing enough to end the war... and using a weapon that was in very limited supply at the time, so that if the demonstration failed they'd have only one more available for the next couple of months, itself an untried plutonium bomb which might not even work. Just imagine the reaction of the peoples of the allied nations if they were told that their governments had chosen _not_ to use those weapons, so their men were dying needlessly? You can certainly make a good case that the allies prolonged the war unneccesarily by demanding unconditional surrender; I'd agree with that myself, and without that demand the bombs would probably not have been used. But fantasies about magical "demonstrations" convincing the Japanese to surrender ignore the realities of the time... indeed, the Americans tried to come up with a viable plan for such a "demonstration" before dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, and failed.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In Sweden saying that bombing those two towns was good is about as acceptable as to say that the holocaust was good.<span id='postcolor'> That may well be because the Swedish armed forces weren't facing the prospect of huge losses from invading Japan, whereas those from America, Britain, Russia and Commonwealth nations were. It's easy to worry about moral qualms when you're not the ones who have to die as a result. That said, in this case Sweden can claim some moral superiority, since it refused to join the stupid war in the first place (it was neutral the whole war, right?).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By a matter of chance, of the three of the Pacific Fleet carriers that would normally be at Pearl that morning, two were at sea on exercises and one was on the U. S. west coast undergoing maintenance.<span id='postcolor'> "By a matter of chance", if you believe the official history. However, it's pretty well-established that America had broken the Japanese naval code and had advance warning of the attack, therefore it seems likely to me that those carriers were deliberately moved out beforehand... the US government was eager for an excuse to join the war, and the US navy could afford to lose a few battleships, but not carriers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> But..again..the use of nuclear devices on civilians was a horrific crime. <span id='postcolor'> People keep saying this here, but I've yet to see anyone convincingly explain why "the use of nuclear devices on civilians was a horrific crime", yet the use of conventional bombs or incendiaries is not a horrible crime. In what possible way can killing a hundred thousand people with a nuclear bomb somehow be so much worse than burning them to death with incendiaries?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And no, his idea was not about using the first occasion to throw it on his motherland! (anyway he played a minor rule in the developement ) <span id='postcolor'> Einstein not only renounced his German citizenship, but was instrumental in starting the Manhattan Project to create bombs to use against Germany; without his letter of support to Roosevelt, the odds are good that the nuclear weapons program would have been delayed until much later in the war, if it ever started at all.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But we do have the benifit of hindsight now.<span id='postcolor'> And, with the benefit of hindsight, your alternative to bombing industrial cities would be, exactly? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is why I find it unbelievable that people today think that it was 'a-ok to a-bomb' the two cities. <span id='postcolor'> War (outside of computers) is stupid and obscene; it's something that should be avoided when possible, but once you accept that you're going to fight to the death against another nation, arguing about the tactics is pointless. WWII was one of the stupidest wars in history and should never have been fought, but once it began it was an industrialised war which involved everyone in those nations; if you can't understand why we think that that bombing those cities wasn't a "war crime" (a term used solely by the victors to punish the vanquished), then you're clearly unable to put yourself into the position of people who'd been fighting total war for five years or more, seeing their brothers, husbands, fathers and sons killed in large numbers. What else would you do? Pull the navy and troops back and let Japan rebuild its military? It's not as though they could just sit there and wait while their ships were being sunk in large numbers by kamikaze attacks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hiroshima still is a gravejard!<span id='postcolor'> Boy, that'll be news to all those people who live there!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think Einstein was fascinated in trying to achieve a nuclear fusion reaction more than he wanted to build the bomb.<span id='postcolor'> Einstein was primarily responsible for the atomic bomb program and intended from the beginning that it should be dropped on Germany at the earliest opportunity; he was Jewish, after all, so wasn't particularly fond of Nazi scumbags.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Your honour..this is not correct!" as I said before (about as noone reads my crap) Stalin was just a pinch away from declaring war on Japan. Also, Japan had just lost its allies from europe, its fleet was heavily destroyed, they were aware that america would now focus all its attention away from europe towards Japan.<span id='postcolor'> And? The Russians had nowhere near the naval forces required to launch an invasion of Japan, and America and Britain would have been hard-pressed to do so alone, so had little prospect of taking Russian troops with them; particularly when their navies were being decimated by kamikaze attacks. The Japanese of the time would have fought to the bitter end, and the allies were well aware of that; vastly more civilians would have died in an invasion than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki... and, as others have pointed out, those civilians were building the weapons used against the Allied forces. If bombing cities in Europe to destroy industrial production was justified, then the nuclear attacks on Japan were equally justified.