Mr. Snrub

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (168GRN HPBT @ 03 May 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Being a hunter i have often looked at Flaspoint and wondered why no one has done a hunting mod, as the hunting games that exist sux very much , ofp has the weapons the masive maps it could be fun me thinks, some pigs and a few roo's vs an m-60 dose it get any better<span id='postcolor'> Probably because there still isn't any realistic way to create animals for OFP. You could conceivably make a static 3D model of an animal, and have it sort of hover around, but AFAIK we don't have the capability to animate 4-legged animals, birds etc. But I agree, a hunting mod would go great with OFP2 - safari anyone? I agree with what Hellfish6 said on the first page - i'd rather have BIS focusing on the major elements of gameplay/game engine etc. than on superfluous things like animals - just as long as the community gets the capability to make them.

Very good idea indeed, and it most likely wouldn't require any major (if any at all) modifications to the game engine, just a bit of additional programming - definitely a do-able feature, but as gonk said, it's not top priority.

Looking very impressive! Take your time and make it as good as you can, and it will be appreciated that much more If you can manage to animate the centre column (to and from the firing position), that'd be fantastic - the realism wouldn't go astray, and everyone likes fancy new features. Looking forward to the release

I think i've pretty much come to the conclusion that the best system humans can follow that will benefit as many fellow humans as possible is a liberal democracy, even a socialist one (depending on your definition of socialism). I believe it's highly unlikely that Australia will become a Marxist/Communist state, primarily because most people recognise the futility/unattainability of a lot of Marxist ideals.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (M1carbine9 @ 01 May 2003,07:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">-CIA Special Force units, will look like Civil with Splash of Spec. op gear<span id='postcolor'> I'm really interested in seeing stuff like this get made. I assume you're talking about units like the CIA's Special Activities Division. Here's some images from Afghanistan to help you out (if you haven't seen them before)... http://www4.aixgaming.com/opend/CIA_SAD These guys seem to be the first in to any conflict, and would be great in an OFP mission where you have to contact the locals. Looking forward to any progress you guys make

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ 01 May 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There were wars in about every single country while back! Most of them were way more interesting that Vietnam! So your point is invalid! <span id='postcolor'> Uh....? Is there some sort of official War-Interest-O-Metre that I'm unaware of? Maybe other wars of the same vintage are more interesting to you, but Vietnam was certainly the most important. I can see that maybe your disinterest in Vietnam is due to it having been done in a lot of other games (Vietcong, OFPs Nam Pack) and that's understandable. There are a lot of other conflicts that could be simulated that have never been represented (and a lot that won't ever be). I'd love a game focusing on Aussie troops in New Guinea or Borneo during WWII, but I know that not a lot of other people are terribly interested in that. My point isn't invalid, and certainly isn't as subjective as yours is. If OFP2 is set in Vietnam it's because of a number of factors - among them: 1.) BIS thinks Vietnam would play well in the gaming demographic, better than a war that not many people have heard of. 2.) Vietnam is, for some reason, of more interest to BIS developers than another US/USSR game.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ 01 May 2003,02:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There were wars in about every single country while back! Most of them were way more interesting that Vietnam! So your point is invalid! <span id='postcolor'> Uh....? Is there some sort of official War-Interest-O-Metre that I'm unaware of? Maybe other wars of the same vintage are more interesting to you, but Vietnam was certainly the most important. I can see that maybe your disinterest in Vietnam is due to it having been done in a lot of other games (Vietcong, OFPs Nam Pack) and that's understandable. There are a lot of other conflicts that could be simulated that have never been represented (and a lot that won't ever be). I'd love a game focusing on Aussie troops in New Guinea or Borneo during WWII, but I know that not a lot of other people are terribly interested in that. My point isn't invalid, and certainly isn't as subjective as yours is. If OFP2 is set in Vietnam it's because of a number of factors - among them: 1.) BIS thinks Vietnam would play well in the gaming demographic, better than a war that not many people have heard of. 2.) Vietnam is, for some reason, of more interest to BIS developers than another US/USSR game.

I will most certainly be buying OFP2, if it's anything like the first. I hope my $79 AUD (or whatever they're going to make me pay for it) will allow the BIS guys to buy a nice bottle of scotch for their hard work

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ 30 April 2003,22:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So there is no logical explanation for OFP2 to be set in Vietnam! None whatsoever, really!<span id='postcolor'> There was a war in Vietnam a while back, I think that pretty much qualifies it Could we all please chill out and wait until we have it in our grubby little mits before we crap all over it? What if it turns out to be the most intensely realistic wargame ever made, with limitless possibilies to create combat scenarios anywhere on Earth? Just hold on until we actually see the game </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh and don't forget that they won WW2 just invading Normandy. <span id='postcolor'> And this is rock-solid proof of why BIS may have made a computer game set in Vietnam? I don't know about you, but I'm convinced!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ 30 April 2003,22:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So there is no logical explanation for OFP2 to be set in Vietnam! None whatsoever, really!<span id='postcolor'> There was a war in Vietnam a while back, I think that pretty much qualifies it Could we all please chill out and wait until we have it in our grubby little mits before we crap all over it? What if it turns out to be the most intensely realistic wargame ever made, with limitless possibilies to create combat scenarios anywhere on Earth? Just hold on until we actually see the game </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh and don't forget that they won WW2 just invading Normandy. <span id='postcolor'> And this is rock-solid proof of why BIS may have made a computer game set in Vietnam? I don't know about you, but I'm convinced!

It is in the end just a game, and in order to be fun, I think there should be a limit to how brutal the realism should be. I have no problem with the realistic depiction of war in movies, as its generally intended to inform the viewer of the brutal futility of war. Games are designed to entertain - simulating the effects of war in a game will be end up (even if it was intended to be informative) as entertainment. I'm not at all a screaming moral crusader (ugh), but I respect the horrors of war to a point where I don't want it turned into pure entertainment for 14 years old. I'm not at all saying you don't respect it, in fact you sound like you very much do. I would support implementing it if the majority of gamers out there were mature enough to realise that any attempt to portray realistic warfare were an attempt to educate.

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Goodspeed @ 30 April 2003,078)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Believe my guys, it will be again about evil Russians. With no doubts for me. I've got some reasons for such statement: 1. There are no such powerful opponents for NATO or USA in the world exept Russia (may be China is, but it's not so interesting. Why? Look at number 4 ); 2. There are no countries in the world with so big weapon arsenal like in Russia; 3. There are no good possible scenario for military conflict except for Russia vs NATO (USA); 4. Czech's people aren't like russians and developers of this game aren't expulsion (Believe me, I'm know what I'm talking about). So, be ready for something about crazy, bloody Russian babykillers and holy USA army Guba will be back <span id='postcolor'> Let's have a look 1.) Maybe not in terms of military technology, but countries like North Korea (and Vietnam c.1960's) give the US a run for it's money in terms of sheer numbers. Other, smaller & less tech. advanced countries & non-state forces may not be able to take the US head on in a conventional military conflict, but would be a real thorn in the side if fighting a guerilla war. ie. Vietnam. 2.) If you equate power with arsenal, then the USSR was a pretty good match. But most conflicts the US has been involved in have been with much smaller, far less well-equipped forces. 3.) Why? Why wouldn't a game set in Afghanistan, the Middle-East, Africa, S.E. Asia, or South America be as good as a fictional war between Russia and the US? 4.) Just because the BIS guys might not like Russia doesn't mean they're going to base another game in an anti-Russian format. They have to think of sales as well - OFP was set against Russian forces, why do the same thing in OFP2? If anything, they may lose sales from such a single-minded approach. They know that people other than Czechs play OFP and I don't think they'd risk the popularity of OFP2 just to stick the boot into the Russians. However, I won't be surprised if the US is the main force in the game (and even if it's portrayed in an overly positive light). In fact, if its based on a real war, it would probably be a good idea as the US has been involved in some way in a lot of conflicts... Looks to me like a Vietnam War backdrop - perhaps OFP2 will be based in a sideshow conflict rather than the main war, or it will be a fictional war in Vietnam - one that proceeds differently to how it really did. I'm just going to wait and see

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Goodspeed @ 30 April 2003,078)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Believe my guys, it will be again about evil Russians. With no doubts for me. I've got some reasons for such statement: 1. There are no such powerful opponents for NATO or USA in the world exept Russia (may be China is, but it's not so interesting. Why? Look at number 4 ); 2. There are no countries in the world with so big weapon arsenal like in Russia; 3. There are no good possible scenario for military conflict except for Russia vs NATO (USA); 4. Czech's people aren't like russians and developers of this game aren't expulsion (Believe me, I'm know what I'm talking about). So, be ready for something about crazy, bloody Russian babykillers and holy USA army Guba will be back <span id='postcolor'> Let's have a look 1.) Maybe not in terms of military technology, but countries like North Korea (and Vietnam c.1960's) give the US a run for it's money in terms of sheer numbers. Other, smaller & less tech. advanced countries & non-state forces may not be able to take the US head on in a conventional military conflict, but would be a real thorn in the side if fighting a guerilla war. ie. Vietnam. 2.) If you equate power with arsenal, then the USSR was a pretty good match. But most conflicts the US has been involved in have been with much smaller, far less well-equipped forces. 3.) Why? Why wouldn't a game set in Afghanistan, the Middle-East, Africa, S.E. Asia, or South America be as good as a fictional war between Russia and the US? 4.) Just because the BIS guys might not like Russia doesn't mean they're going to base another game in an anti-Russian format. They have to think of sales as well - OFP was set against Russian forces, why do the same thing in OFP2? If anything, they may lose sales from such a single-minded approach. They know that people other than Czechs play OFP and I don't think they'd risk the popularity of OFP2 just to stick the boot into the Russians. However, I won't be surprised if the US is the main force in the game (and even if it's portrayed in an overly positive light). In fact, if its based on a real war, it would probably be a good idea as the US has been involved in some way in a lot of conflicts... Looks to me like a Vietnam War backdrop - perhaps OFP2 will be based in a sideshow conflict rather than the main war, or it will be a fictional war in Vietnam - one that proceeds differently to how it really did. I'm just going to wait and see

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (seedhe @ 30 April 2003,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see a potentially major problem with maximum flexiblity of appearance/loadouts. Dont get me wrong I like the idea, just playing a bit of devils advocate here. There is a pretty steep learning curve in a multiplayer environment (especially in advanced mode) being able to identify the differences between east and west in the current version of the game. We all have the differences committed to memory by now but if you have a guy 50-100m away running towards your position with a uniform you havent seen before and carrying a weapon you cant identify at that distance, theres gonna be tears <span id='postcolor'> If you're playing the mission, you should really know what countries (and hence which uniforms) are going to be involved. It'll just take a bit of time to learn to distinguish between them, as it did before with the US/Russian uniforms. I suppose if there's going to end up being 20+ different uniform choices, it'd be a good idea to fiddle around in the editor and have a look at what a Swedish/Egyptian/Chilean soldier looks like and what weapons they use.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 30 April 2003,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We need realistic combat injuries and AI behavior to back them: Severed limbs, wounds that bleed and people that react properly. Screaming, writhing soldiers, not guys who crawl quietly to the nearest medic. I want guys with abdominal wounds to grab them, and then scream like someone really would. If the game is about combat realism, then this is the most realistic part of combat. People get injured, it hurts, they scream and bleed a lot.<span id='postcolor'> But it's not essential to gameplay. To be honest, I'd rather not have a game which simulates warfare down to the grittiest detail, like the sorts of wounds suffered in combat. The effect wounds and injuries have on your squad can be simulated in other ways. I agree, however, that the current OFP wound simulation isn't quite as good as it could be. Soldier's should be immobile if their wounds are severe enough, they should perhaps die if untreated after a certain amount of time etc. etc. But soldier's writhing in agony and screaming in pain (as accurate as it is) is not quite conducive to an enjoyable gaming experience. All in all, the game is meant to be fun, not a traumatic experience. I understand that it's far more realistic than it is at the moment, but there should be a limit. The more disturbing effects of war should remain in the realm of films.

Fantastic idea, although I mentioned something similar in a thread a while back Replacing as many init line commands with drop-down editor options is the way to go.

Although not a cheat, I'd like to see the "nodammage" command back (although perhaps spelt correctly ). I found it invaluable whenever I attempted to make a proper mission, just so that I could finish it quickly and see if everything worked as it should. From my understanding it was removed because it could exploited in some way in MP - I'm sure BIS could include this command in OFP2 while keeping it completely out of MP. I think this should be applied to SP as well. Cheats can be fun when you've beaten the campaign/s (multiple times) and would like to try and squeeze some more out of it. They let you explore a little more, do things a bit different. If you cheat from the get go, that's fine, you just won't get the full experience of enjoyment and accomplishment. Like Major Fubar said, you don't have to use them if you don't want to. As long as the cheats are kept strictly SP, and can't be exploited in MP, then you guys shouldn't have anything to worry about.

I'll leave the rest of the details to the real experts, but I'm pretty sure the "XMS" is just an (inappropriate) name for the XM-177 Colt Commando - the 'S' being an identifier of a scope on the weapon ...

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (~Too Tall~ @ April 10 2003,197)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i got about 2 MB worth of OFP screenshots that id love to show off but its too much trouble uploading them all<span id='postcolor'> That's why the 100Kb rule is necessary, so poor 56k modem schmoes like me won't have to wait 20 minutes to download pictures. Rules are there for a real reason, not just to spite people like you. If you really think your picture would look better if it wasn't reduced to 100Kb, perhaps you could post a >100Kb image here and link to a full version somewhere else - then people can choose whether to use their bandwidth (or lack of it)... Most, if not all, of the images posted here are fantastic - I just don't want to wait for an unnecessarily long time to view them... Edit: sorry to divert the thread again pcverden - back on track now

'Defence' need not relate to a direct terrirtorial defence against an foreign aggressor - it can also be attributed to defending a countries interests abroad, ie. the notion of 'forward defence'. Plus, it wouldn't do much for foreign relations if you called your armed forces the 'Offence Force' - might worry some of your neighbours Could someone tell me the difference (in factual information, that is) between FAS.org and GlobalSecurity.org? I know they are independent analysis and research groups, but they seem to have much the same information, just a different layout...

Sefe (I think that's his name) released a M3 Bradley and M6 Linebacker a while back...I'll post a link to it if I can find it... Nothing changed model or texture-wise (except a retextured TOW launcher on the M6; changed to resemble a FIM-92 launcher) to the BIS M2A2, but the M3 carried more ammunition and had less room for troops, and the M6 had a pretty effective Stinger launcher. A new Bradley pack (with new animations, sounds, textures etc.) would be better though - we need at least a half-decent desert textured Bradley to simulate the current war

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Landwarrior87 @ April 05 2003,13:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">why do the kiowa's have their own Directory in the editor? its in BAS - vehicles?? shoudlnt this be in the one with all the other choppers... Y isnt it using 106th SOAR Guys??? hmm i smell a patch.. or maybe a 160th SOAR update.. along with the littlebirds..<span id='postcolor'> I'm guessing it's not with the other choppers because it's not used by special forces, just regular Army - the 160th to my knowledge doesn't fly Kiowas... It took me a little while to find too, but it's better to seperate them in the long run. As for the MH-60, just be patient - give them an extra bit of time to make it spot on, and we shall all be happy with the final product Feedback on Kiowas: I love the smoke/illumination FFARs and the rotor downwash effects, I hope you implement this on all future versions of your helos The stock-standard unarmed TH-57 is terrific - all we need to do now is give it some extra windows and a new paint job, and we have a ripper civilian chopper Well done again BAS

You guys are absolute champs! This was something I've been wanting to see since the original BIS Kiowa, but I didn't think anyone was within months of releasing them! I 'll download 'em straight away and post some feedback - I just had to congratulate you guys ... huzzah for BAS!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Recent recruits who grew up on popular commercial games like Half-Life, Counterstrike and Quake 3...<span id='postcolor'> Oh...my....god.....and these people are going to be given weapons! Good article though, even if written from a slightly skewed position

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (|iCeMaN| @ April 02 2003,07:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh and did anyone think of making a downed commercial plane, like a 747 or Cessna...just a suggestion.. <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">am working on the dc10 as a static object so you can use it in hostage missions.<span id='postcolor'> There yer go The crashed Blackhawk is terrific, adds a bit more dynamism to a mission - all I can suggest is making some nice high-res textures with some bulletholes, burn marks etc., and maybe a couple of different versions (one on its side, one with rotor missing etc.) Great job though - nice to know someone's making some good auxiliary addons...