nyles

Terrain streaminig, it they manag to get it work properly, will indeed be a major breakthrough, both for single-player and multi-player.

Yeah like with OFP1 we the game will be out in time. The question is just, if Codemasters pushes them again so they have to deliver a half-baken game with tons of bugs, and then throw out a number of patches in the first year after release to get it to level, they originally wanted it to ship at. Well, we'll see...

If they want to increase sales, they'd better do..

Seat management: OFP currently has four types of places for players in vehicles. driver, gunner, commander and ride in back. The first three are pretty clear as they only allow for one player but the ride in back positions could need some improvement. Let's take the 5-ton truck for example: When you want to ride in back, the first 2 persons are automatically placed in the drivers cabine, regardless of where they tried to enter the vehicle. I would like to see it work that way, that there is a division of ride in back positions and not that ride in back pool like we have right now. Basically this means that when I want to ride in back and enter the vehicle at the back, I can only be placed on the back area of the vehicle and not in the cabine. Furthermore, when I enter at the front door, I can't be placed on the back. It might be difficult to achieve this, especially making all this clear to the AI, but it certainly would add a lot to the game. There are a lot of vehicles which could need several adjustments here. For example the jeeps, trucks and basically every vehicle with a seperated crew compartment. Another thing which I would like to see is how and when crew members can take over stations from other persons. I wouldn't limit the possibility to exchange places to stationary units only, for example. That way, the co-pilot or even a passenger could take over the pilot seat if he gets shot down, or a better pilot riding in back could be asked to take over controls in-flight. There are a lot of nice possibilities which arise from the sheer fact that it would be possible. In tanks for example, the commander could easily take over the gunner station or vice versa. Note though, that currently the commander and gunner can take over the driver station in tanks where the driver is seperated from the rest of the crew. This should not be the case. Neither while standing nor while moving. You should have to disembark and enter the vehicle as driver again. This would not only be realistic but makes the handling of a whole tank by a single player more difficult and more fair to other players who try to team up. Furthermore there are some vehicles that could need some more spare ride in back seats like the m113, where there is still a lot of space in the back, even when fully loaded. You did something like this already with the Hind helicopter by increasing passenger capacity from 6 to 8 in one of the last patches if I recall correctly, thus it shouldn't be a big problem. When considering changes regarding seat management, you should always think in a logical way if it would be possible to change from seat A to seat B or not. The option to order AI to switch to accessable positions without having to disembark would be nice, too. The current system might work, too, but a rework could add a lot the game as a whole, as it would make it more realistic and for many people more fun to play, too. Another advantage would be that when moving around with a tank platoon there is often the case that one of your tanks gets shot down leaving a few of the crew injured but alive. In such cases the whole movement speed of the platoon is crippled as the infantry moves very slow and if injured mostly can only crawl. I would suggest to give some of the MBTs another spare seat inside. This seat could simply be the position of the loader which most tanks lack as a crew member anyways in op:fp. I'm not suggesting to give the tanks 4 crew members by default as this would most likely screw up a lot of missions where the max. squadlimit would be exceeded. Just allow personal to use this spare seats (1 per tank) as a "ride in back" option. Yet another option would be to allow a number of soldiers to ride atop tanks, but with the option for the tank crew to kick them off the tank if the tank is below a certain speed, so it can still rapidly engage targets without having to wait before everybody is off the tank again.

Yeah, something like an additional general purpose key for weapons would be great. Depending on the situation, it would be used for something different. For example, if your weapon malfunctions, you could hit the key, and the player would start fixing it. While there is no malfunction, the key could be used for something else or just be of no-use. On a machinegun, the very same key, could fix malfunctions if there is a jam, and while there is none, if could be used to exchange barrels, if they overheat. There is lot's of potential in this.

I agree, multiple gunners in one way or the other is a must! If OFP2 will be indeed (at least partly) in Vietnam, I want one of these to be fully operational:

I like the layout, and I also don't mind the vertical lines in the background. The idea of adding that OFP2 section was a good choice, as it will keep the community closer together. Just one thing: Would it not be better to be consistant with the forum names? Currently there is a "Bi-General, a "General" forum and a "OFP2 - General". I'd prefer to rename all OFP related forums to "OFP - General", "OFP - Troubleshooting", etc.. just so they fit in with the rest. And as previously noted, it would also go better with the search function. In the future you then could expand this syntax to other games like "IL - General" , "VBS1 - General" , or "OFP4XBOX - General".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Little Blue Assassin @ April 24 2003,12:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have three words for you. Â Dream on.<span id='postcolor'> lol

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sgt. Milkman @ April 23 2003,23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why hes firing it standing up, he propably won't hit anything standing up like that.<span id='postcolor'> Welcome to the wonderful world of Operation Flashpoint! Here you can hit targets from a standing position with standard iron sights at distances up to 600m; Here you can knock out a tank with infantry AT weapons at distances way over 400m; Here you can throw a grenade and have it magically detonate on impact; Here.... Mhh, you got the idea. Increased realism in weapon handling is a must for OFP2 on my personal checklist. Weapons should behave in a realistic way and offer some new functionality like (working) bipods, maybe even tripods, malfunctions due to outer influence (water, mud), overheating barrels (maybe option to barrel change then, as well), options to not max out magazines in order to have the weapon jam less, and also the option that if you reload a non empty weapon, you will get the new mag's ammo count and in addition the one bullet still chambered. There is so much that hopefully will be included in terms of weaponry. I really really hope they try to make it as believable as possible this time. No more reloading LAWs, and no more weapons that in the way BIS simulated them, simply do not exist (carl gustav is not guideable and even worse, only used by specops from 1990 onwards, not regulars.) Well, with all those military connections through VBS1, I guess they might indeed manage to things simulated in a more realistic way this time. I have a lot of faith in BIS.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sgt. Milkman @ April 23 2003,23:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why hes firing it standing up, he propably won't hit anything standing up like that.<span id='postcolor'> Welcome to the wonderful world of Operation Flashpoint! Here you can hit targets from a standing position with standard iron sights at distances up to 600m; Here you can knock out a tank with infantry AT weapons at distances way over 400m; Here you can throw a grenade and have it magically detonate on impact; Here.... Mhh, you got the idea. Increased realism in weapon handling is a must for OFP2 on my personal checklist. Weapons should behave in a realistic way and offer some new functionality like (working) bipods, maybe even tripods, malfunctions due to outer influence (water, mud), overheating barrels (maybe option to barrel change then, as well), options to not max out magazines in order to have the weapon jam less, and also the option that if you reload a non empty weapon, you will get the new mag's ammo count and in addition the one bullet still chambered. There is so much that hopefully will be included in terms of weaponry. I really really hope they try to make it as believable as possible this time. No more reloading LAWs, and no more weapons that in the way BIS simulated them, simply do not exist (carl gustav is not guideable and even worse, only used by specops from 1990 onwards, not regulars.) Well, with all those military connections through VBS1, I guess they might indeed manage to things simulated in a more realistic way this time. I have a lot of faith in BIS.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ April 23 2003,21:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My best guess now is semi-fictional something about vietnam.  I'm  thinkin it's gonna start in vietnam, then your character get's to do some dirty work.  It goes without saying the US was places they shouldn't have been when fighting the war.  I could definatly see this concept used to in the creation of it.<span id='postcolor'> dirty work sounds like special operations and the like...mhhh, I don't know. I'd rather think they will do something on a bigger scale. Afterall we for sure will see large terrain, many vehicles and aircraft, etc.. It might indeed be something like a fictional conflict mixed with some events in vietnam or at least at a similiar time like the vietnam war, but it will definetely be on a large scale with big troop movements and the like. Afterall that's already something like a trademark for a game titled operation flashpoint, isn't it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ April 23 2003,21:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My best guess now is semi-fictional something about vietnam.  I'm  thinkin it's gonna start in vietnam, then your character get's to do some dirty work.  It goes without saying the US was places they shouldn't have been when fighting the war.  I could definatly see this concept used to in the creation of it.<span id='postcolor'> dirty work sounds like special operations and the like...mhhh, I don't know. I'd rather think they will do something on a bigger scale. Afterall we for sure will see large terrain, many vehicles and aircraft, etc.. It might indeed be something like a fictional conflict mixed with some events in vietnam or at least at a similiar time like the vietnam war, but it will definetely be on a large scale with big troop movements and the like. Afterall that's already something like a trademark for a game titled operation flashpoint, isn't it?

Is that the same brother that that was outcasted from south-bengolosia for wearing a pale-blue t-shirt, and then joined a ninja-zombie cult that worshipped nano aliens from venus? Or was that the other of Guba's brothers?

Is that the same brother that that was outcasted from south-bengolosia for wearing a pale-blue t-shirt, and then joined a ninja-zombie cult that worshipped nano aliens from venus? Or was that the other of Guba's brothers?

Well, personally I think that Vietnam is as overplayed as WW2.

Well, personally I think that Vietnam is as overplayed as WW2.

Marines were peacekeeping that region before they were withdrawn to fight in the Gulf War. Aussies took over then.

Marines were peacekeeping that region before they were withdrawn to fight in the Gulf War. Aussies took over then.

Well, personally, I'd hoped for a more "fresh" scenario. Something like a conflict in Eastern Europe or maybe Korea. Every second developer is making a Vietnam game nowadays. I also exlains why things have gotten very silent around Operation Vietnam, yes. Ah well, I will buy it anyways though.

Well, personally, I'd hoped for a more "fresh" scenario. Something like a conflict in Eastern Europe or maybe Korea. Every second developer is making a Vietnam game nowadays. I also exlains why things have gotten very silent around Operation Vietnam, yes. Ah well, I will buy it anyways though.

Tried both ways.

Hi, I am currently modifying an existing c&h type multiplayer map. While doing so, I have encountered a problem with rearming helis. The plan is that instead of the helis being fully armed at the start, there is an ammo truck at the spawn with exactly the same amount of missiles in it, like the helis would originally have. That way, the teams have to wage if they spend some time to arm the choppers or bring their troops to the front-line right at the beginning and seize a town. The problem is that when I remove the ammo from the choppers, I am not able to rearm at the ammo truck. If I leave but one missile in each heli, I can hover above the ammo truck and rearm like usual. Is there a known bug, which only allows to rearm if you had at least a few rounds left at mapstart? This is kinda frustrating, as I want that the helis are completly winchester at the mission start. A single missile left might still be enough to down the enemy heli, while it lands to disembark troopers (parachutes are disabled via script). Has anyone an (easy) solution or workaround, so I can still manage to rearm at the ammo truck later on during the mission, but have emtpy missile racks for the helis at mission start? Anyone?

The most annoying thing however, is the lack of acknowledgement from behalf of BIS. At least they could say that what they know about this problem if they have a vague guess what might be the reason for all those masses of timeouts. So, BIS?

I hate it. Just got a timeout after a nice game of 24 minutes again. I demand a fix for this. It is really annoying. From a teammate in gamevoice I know that two more people got the xyz is loosing connection message right with me. So it definetly has something to do with OFP. Afterall my voice programm held the connection. Also, I didn't get a timeout in IRC, either. BIS, please work out a fix. In every missions I play there are several people getting connection lost messages. My guess is that most of them are experiencing this timeout bug.

I think the idea itself is very very good. However I have my doubts about realisation. A few weeks ago, there was a discussion about including certain addons in missions used in the 'Electronic Sports League'. The result was that no addons should be included, as the current presence of the league maps on public-servers is one of the reason, the league has so many clans joining. It is a common fact that maps with addons are almost never played online, as there are way too less people playing which have them installed. So basically for the ESL, this would mean that the league maps would rarely be played public, resulting in the loss of a good way to recruit new players and clans for the sports league. Now with certain top-notch addons being advertised directly from www.flashpoint1985.com, chances are increasing that more and more people will be playing online that have at least some of these 3rd party addons installed, making it possible to use them in ESL-specific missions. The problem i see though is about the standard of these AAE classified addons. There are many very excellent addons out there; many of them having a much more polished look than BIS' own models that shipped with the game. However, in my oppinion AAE addons should follow a certain guideline. They should be balanced with the rest of the game units and also there should be an even distribution of West- and East-based models. In the ESL, there was one thing avoided by not agreeing on the usage of addons: The question which addons should get in, and which not? The problem simply is that this community spawned a shitload of addons, so to say. There are so many talented modellers, skinners and coders here, that we can for sure list ourselves on one of the top ranks on a ranking based on the quantity of custom addons. It will be a hard decission to decide on only a few of them to enter the special new inner circle of AAE addons. I'm also with Suchey here, I personally would like to see things focused on mulitplayer compatibility, as well. Some addons are great for singleplayer, but can hardly be balanced in multiplayer. Because of this, I fear that it will be a tough thing to decide on which addons being pimped and which not.