nyles

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STGN @ Mar. 11 2003,16:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Clarentavious @ Mar. 11 2003,114)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Most tanks have 35 rounds a piece of each.<span id='postcolor'> you are talking about light tanks cause the Abrams only have 40 rounds. always use HEAT against T72/80 in OFP a T80 takes 4 HEAT and 6 SABOT. I have heard that the uran can take SABOT rounds. STGN<span id='postcolor'> what? I don't think so. Best results against any type of armour are to be gained with sabot rounds. Heat is good for infantry formations, fortified positions and soft armour.

Yes, and if it's not too much to ask for, please release it before christmas.

Rifleman is best, however I still like to play any "class" once in a while.

Great, they screwed it up with 1.91 (or even 1.90) and now fled the scene.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Feb. 24 2003,04:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What I want is the ability to override the gunner from the pilot seat.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, best would be to make this possible even during flight, in case the pilot gets killed. That way there is a small chance that you manage to takeover in time to prevent the chopper from crashing. In general, I'd like to see it be possible to change from gunner to commander position while driving (but not to driver) and be able to do other possible changes of position as long as they are somewhat realistic. Along with this it would be great, if a gunner would still be able to rotate the turret of a tank, when the driver is turned out. Another nice thing would be if you could order a gunner where to point his turret when you are commander (maybe something like freelook key + fire button, just like with infantry).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kegetys @ Feb. 23 2003,05:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or why not use the voice ofp has..<span id='postcolor'> I would, but BIS still didn't repair the in-game voice for socket-based servers. It might be because the in-game voice is build around directplay, but still it is very sad, that they didn't come up with an alternative by now. GameVoice and other programms are quiet nice, but I always loved the channel mode, which let you talk with vehicle crew, group, side, etc.. Especially the direct speech option was amazing.

lol, good one.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shashman @ Feb. 21 2003,20:25)</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">warheads for the CG (CG missiles not guideable of course). <span id='postcolor'> the 84mm Carl Gustav anti-tank weapon is not a missile launcher, but a recoilless gun. Â Heh, in the Falklands conflict a Royal marine used his CG first to shoot down an Argentine chopper and then put a hole through the side plate of a destroyer! Â <span id='postcolor'> yeyeye Still the request remains unanswered: Will there be a proper CG recoiless gun with different types of ammunition for the rangers some day?

Back on topic: Are you planning to include a real CarlGustav launcher for the Rangers? the model itself is already done, but the OFP CG is far from being close to the real-steel thingy. It would be great if the specops would have some more more pyrotechnical stuff, like smoke, high explosive or illumination warheads for the CG (CG missiles not guideable of course). Another nice thing would be to have pyrotechnical 40mm grenades as well for the m203. It would definetly add to the atmoshphere.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Feb. 01 2003,11:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='color:blue'>LINUX</span> 1) lower case has been used as standard, for linux compatibility 2) Spaces If spaces in the filename are causing a problem for your md5 scripts their is a workaround for it "The md5 thing": Unix uses spaces as separators for lists. Using spaces in filenames breaks many scripting possibilities as space separated lists don't work anymore. There is a way of getting around some of those limitations by using xargs. Printing ONE script that does something with md5sum would not help much. People have to take care and not use space separated lists in their scripting and use filename globbing and find -print0 and xargs whenever possible/needed. Here is one example : </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> md5sum *.pbo | sort | uniq -d --check-chars=33 | cut -f 3- -d " " | xargs -i mv \{\} dup/\{\}<span id='postcolor'> which moves duplicate maps to a folder called dup.<span id='postcolor'> Hey Sin, the tool used in the ESL is based on md5 right? Perhaps this workaround will already do, and still allow you to use spaces in the map names. Show this to one of your coders. They might come up with something. It would be great to have yet another big league join the party. EDIT: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Terox @ Feb. 01 2003,11:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> 6) Under no circumstances are underscores to be used <span id='postcolor'> If you absolutly have to, please use normal hyphens to seperate the segements in the map syntax.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Feb. 21 2003,00:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 19 2003,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gourka @ Feb. 19 2003,18:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW you are my best real MOM  <span id='postcolor'> There's a portion of boiled spinach waiting for you in the kitchen. /that usually scares the strays away<span id='postcolor'> I`d take the spinach if I can get some noodles and cheese too  <span id='postcolor'> Aha! Now that's where you run to, when your clan leader commands you to have a diet. Fallen, you liar!

Hehehe, I might be violating at least a bunch of forum rules, but I have to say this: DENOIR I HATE YOU! How dare you to post in the Flashnews forum? I loaded up the forums like usual and my eyes wandered from top to bottom of the main page, when I suddenly noticed the green light at the Flashnews forum being turned on. My heart almost stopped, as I started to realize that this could mean a true BIS-sanctioned news update regarding IL, OFP2, a new patch or whatever else. But then, when I continued to read to the last post info, I noticed the new topic name and that it was not from Suma or any other developer, but from YOU! CURSE YOU! Don't you ever do that again! You hear me? Never ever post something in there, during a period of sparse news updates. 99% of the forum population checks there at least once a day and hopes for that little green light to be turned on.

It happens on every server from time to time, not just ours. The strange thing is that most of the time, groups of player get disconnected from the server (xyz is loosing connection) at the very same time or in short succession. When those timeouts occour, I do not get disconnected from GameVoice and I also remain online in IRC. It is just with OFP. 2-3 times it already happened during Briefing, but mostly it's after a few minutes or somewhere in the middle of the map time. This was never the case with any patch prior to 1.85 or maybe 1.90. It is really annoying and I demand some sort of info from BIS, if they know about the problem, and if yes, if there will be a fix for this with the next patch. Public relations are indeed in a state in which they could need immediate improvement. Afterall, why release a BETA patch to the public, and not respond on any upcoming problems? They dont even ask for further information so they can investigate the problem more easily, nor do they inform us about progress or give us a new BETA version, to see if things work out better. I mean, that's how BETA testing works, right?

Nothing works for me. Played on our server with a clanmate a few minutes ago and I disconnected again. My clanmate reported that at the same time, several players lost connection, not only me. It definetly has something to do with OFP. Any word from BIS on this one?

From my 'Constructive Criticism', which I posted here last year: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> 2. The pistols are a very nice and handsome addition. I really love to have a tokarev as sidearm, just in case. It really saved my life once in a while during the campaign. There is one thing though, which I really don't like on the pistols: It is possible to fire them at targets way too far away. Currently, when you are shot in the arm, you have a bit more trouble in aiming, making fighting less effective on longer ranges. Because of this, it's way too easy to abuse pistols as sniper weapons, even though, the sights have been thankfully fixed: Pistol rounds no longer hop-up, but the target vanishes below the weapon sight instead, making it a tad harder to aim at far away targets. What I am suggesting is the addition of a little wobble effect when aiming, making it harder to keep the weapon on the target, especially if he is further away. This effect should be implemented for EVERY weapon, with varying effects. Rifle type weapons for example, should be wobbling as much as you currently do when shot in the arm, as long you are standing upright with the rifle. The wobbling should decrease the closer you come to the ground. MGs should have a little more wobble while standing, but on the otherside, should be very precise when being prone, to at least simulate a yet non existent bipod-feature. Even launchers should have a little wobble, however it is extremely easy to balance a tube-shaped weapon on your shoulder and aim with that, so it should be only a very light wobble, still noticeable though. Maybe this would compensate for the current way too far range of most launchers. When fighting armour from the ground, scoring a hit with a range of more than 400 metres is very unlikely, even for stationary targets. In general, I'd rather go for stronger but inaccurate weapons instead of the accurate light weapons we have right now. I will deal with damage later on. 3. With Resistance, I noticed an excessive amount of tracers. I haven't really checked every weapon, but it seems that every one of them is firing tracers. For me at least, this kinda destroys the atmosphere to a certain degree. I would love to see tracers on Autocannons and MG's (handheld, crew-served and vehicle mounted), but not at the current amount. I know that you can disable tracers via the difficulty settings, but I don't want to miss them completly (see MGs). Making every 5th round a tracer on the above mentioned weapons could be enough already. Especially on night missions, the muzzle flash is strong enough to give away positions, there is no need for GREEN laser all over the place. Maybe implementing an improved tracer effect (one of the few interesting things in DF:Black Hawk Down) instead would be great. I'd prefer few but better than the current many but ugly kind of tracers. 4. Weapon damage: I really hoped that 1.85 would eventually, at least partly adjust some weapon data, but unfortunatly I was wrong. Still, I want to present my view of the weapon damage on how it should be. The major point for me is scale here. No matter how the damage values are, be it that you need 10 shots to kill a soldier or one single hit, the calibre of any weapon in the game should be taken into account for the calculation of it's damage compared to other weapons. I was really upset that the G3 rifle was given such a low damage level. You sometimes need 3 hits to the chest to kill a person. I mean, this weapon has 7.62 calibre ammo, yet it is very weak compared to other 5.56 weapons like the AK74 or the MGs. Regardless of what will be done to weapon data in the future, BIS should always try to maintain scale. All weapons firing the same calibre should do the same damage. Even though it would be a big change in gameplay, this should be considered for any upcoming patch. The basic weapons, the M16 and the AK47, are pretty fair in-game at the moment, but especially new implemented weapons and the PK and M60 machineguns need some tweaking. When playing online only few people actually want to play as machinegunner. It's already hard enough to score some aimed hits with them, but even if you hit, the damage is very low for 7.62 calibre weapons. On the other side, the G36, while using standard 5.56 ammo, is a total overkill, being able to kill with a glance to the upper body most of the time. My philosophy is that weapons should be balanced not by damage alone, but also by tweaking accuracy (which would make the G36 perform extremly good already) and other values like rate of fire and reload time. I really hope that if someone of BIS is reading this, they take a minute and think about what I suggest here. In the end it will add to the Flashpoint experience a lot. 5. This is my personal view on how I would like to see the damage system in flashpoint. I'm trying to not use precise damage values but more roughly the shots needed on certain locations to kill. In my opinion, a headshot should always be fatal, no matter what weapon used. I'm excluding other hit locations than chest and legs here, because I'm not familiar with how many different locations there are in total. Its pretty obvious though, that a hit to arm should not take minimal damage only, because of them blocking the chest very often and thus creating the illusion of players surviving tons of chest shots. If possible to check wether a strong bullet would hit multiple locations (i.e. arm+chest), this should be implemented, might be complicated though or even already in the game, dunno. Furthermore, I'm limiting this to infantry weapons and co-axial mgs only. I will not mention different types of the same weapon in the 'weapons' section, as I assume it's pretty obvious that an ak74 should do the same damage like an ak74su, that an ak47 should do the same like an ak47cz and that an m16 should do the same like a xms. Anyways, here is the list, note that it is mainly to show which weapons should belong into the same damage category and not differ in-game: (calibre / hits to chest / hits to legs / using weapons) .50cal + 12.7x109 / 1 / 1 / m2, m2east, m2 co-axial + nsv co-axial 7.62x51 + 7.62x54 / 1 / 1-2 / g3, fal, m60, m21, m240 co-axial + svd, pk, r700 7.62x39 / 1 / 2-3 / ak47 5.56x45 / 1-2 / 2-3 / m16, steyr aug, g36 5.45x39 / 1-3 / 2-3 / ak74 7,62x25 + .45 / 2-3 / 2-4 / tt33 + colt1911 (not done yet) 9x19 + 7.65x17/ 2-4 / 2-4 / mp5, bizon, cz75, 92fs, glock17 + skorpion There are some other nice ideas, which i want to adress together with this list: Someday, I had a nice experience when i rammed a vehicle. The ai driver disembarked the moment I did so, but he was faster and shot me in the legs. I was forced prone and shot him in the chest, killing him, with my trusty beretta. The experience of the auto prone was great and added a lot of atmosphere. My idea about this is that there should be a 70% chance for any hit and not only certain leg hits to knock you off your feet. Unlike some leg shots which won't let you stand up again, you are free to do so with those regular hits though. It just should knock you off your feet. Maybe some modifiers on how high the chance is, could be given according to the type of weapon. A 9mm pistol for example would be less likely to knock you off compared to a chest shot with a m16. Furthermore any hit, should cause a little red flickering on the screen. Very often you fall on the floor face down, only to realize a second or two later that you were shot due to the lack of hit effects. Those suggested new hit effects, combined with the above mentioned chance for any hit to knock you off your feet, would be very nice additions. Now some comments on the weapon list on top of this point, especially in terms of balance. As stated above the exact values for the damage were avoided and instead only displayed with the average amount of hits to certain locations that will kill you. The Russian weapons might seem a little underpowered, compared to other weapons, but in reality they were a tad less effective due to calibre size. However, I still chose hit counts that are very close to each other and only noticeable that you will sometimes need one hit more with the russian weapons. Most of the time, the needed count will be the same though. To compare this, at least in terms of the standard weapons m16 and ak74, the ak offers full auto mode for human players, which should already even things out. However, AI does not benefit from this, what I would like to change. At close ranges, AI should more likely use full auto or longer random burts with aks. This alone would balance things out already. 6. AI machinegunning: In general I would like to see AI use machineguns only in small bursts or full auto and never on single fire. Even on very long ranges they should at least fire in 2-4 shot burts. Especially on tanks, there is often the case where the gunner picks out infantry with single shots from the co-axial machinegun. Currently it seems that high skilled AI are more likely capable of using mgs in auto mode while low skilled units often seem to exclusively use single fire. This strikes me as wrong, as there is no skill in keeping the trigger squeezed while on the other side it is extremely hard to fire off single shots from an machinegun. I would suggest to switch this so that low skilled ai is using more automatic fire, while skilled machinegunners use small burts (but still no single fire). This has another nice effect: The mg fire sound pretty ugly when used in single shots. Only in an continous fire, the sound is acceptable and does not hurt one's ears due to the harsh and unexpected ending. 7. In addition to the above point, I would like to see full auto modes being reworked completly, not just properly simulated for AI units.. Back then, I suggested to have AI shoot more in random full auto bursts (maybe 3-5 shots at a time). Currently, there is no real difference for human players wether they fire in full-auto or semi-auto. Players can still place single shots while on full-auto mode. The idea I had, which might work out nicely, is to have full auto fire a minimum, random number of shots, depended on the rate of fire of the real counterpart of that weapon. That way, there would at least be an amount of 3-5 shots, even though I clicked the fire button for a brief moment only. The trick now would be, that after this random amount of initial shots, there would only be single shots following to gurantee that you can immediate stop firing any time. This random amount would indeed only affect the first rounds to leave the weapon. I think a feature like this would really help to simulate the effect of firing a weapon in full auto. Even though, a very skilled player could indeed manage to fire single shots from a machinegun, the shots mostly will follow in such a rapid succession that you have fired off quiet a number of rounds even with just short squeezing of the trigger. The machinegun atmosphere would be greatly enhanced in OFP that way and would force these weapons more into their respectiv role. When addressing this, I also suggest to check the available fire modes for all weapons. Neither AK47 nor AK74 have a burst mode, for example. 8. Another weapon related issue: Even when a rifle has only one or two remaining bullets and you shoot in burst mode, the 3-burst sample ist still being played. Furthermore if you have ammo left and reload weapon you should get a fresh clip plus the chambered round making 30+1 (31 rounds total) in case of M16 or AK74 as an example. Of course one bullet should be taken away from the ejected clip, as it remained in the chamber. If the chambered round was the last of the clip, it should be discarded as there is no ammo left. I hope you get what i mean. Basically it's about realistic ammo management. <span id='postcolor'>

Representing -[uTw]- united Teamwork, we are in the process of adopting the filename convention. Â

Wonderful, it really worked! You managed what neither BIS nor Creative nor VIA managed. Where did you get that info from? ADMINS: MAKE THIS A STICKY IN THE TROUBLESHOOTING FAQ!

Now we just need AI that doesn't bail out before the player and which attempts to land a heli with engine failure just like this when being pilot.

I agree, it will most likely be one of your two choices. The only think I really hope is that with new addons (if any) we don't just get the final camel, but perhaps some other small, usefull addons as well. Something like a PK-armed UAZ, an Ural w/o back cover and even an Mi17 w/o the missile racks would be great already, and furthermore easy to implement as the base models already exist.

Yes, I experience the very same thing since the last or previous patch. It's kinda annoying to eventually got the mission loading with 20 or more players and enjoy the first couple of minutes and then out of a sudden get the yellow and shortly afterwards the red square appears. It certainly IS very frustrating. Also, there seems to be some sort of pattern, as many people get the timeout at the same time or shortly after each other. At first I though that it might be my crappy ISP, but I start to believe that it is 1.91beta or 1.90 related. Is there any official word, if this is indeed a known or even already tracked down bug?

fas.org is a good start, yes, but the real-deal are original field manuals and force organisation charts. I must admit that there is hardly a better source to get to know the soviet military troop organisation than the us-army ( !! ) field manuals regarding opposing forces.

He certainly is...

same bug here. it's so damn annoying. I have tried about everything... I truly hope BIS will programm there next sound engine something like most other games do. OFP is the only game where I experience the sound crackling/vanishing and entailed system lock-ups...

One feature I suggested a while back and which I really hoped might find its way into Resistance was the ability for tank commanders to tell their gunners on where to point the turret. You can tell infantry where to look at, while clicking at that direction plus holding ALT key (or whatever key you bound for that). Why not make the same thing be possible for tank commanders. When you designate a position to look up, the AI gunner will rotate the turret to that direction, making the Bradley commander spot useable, at last. Currently, this vehicle is almost useless when commanding a otherwise AI crewed one. The same way, human gunners should get the compass on the left bottom, indicating the direction. This would really be a very useful feature and shouldn't be too hard to implement. While we are with designating directions: It would also be very much appreciated, when vehicles as a whole would not face a designated position, but the turret only. It looks a little weird, when ordering an AI tank to "scan horizon". On tanks where the gunner is able to turn out, AI gunners will still be able to rotate the turret and engage targets. I think they should turn in for that like humans. On the other side I would like to see the gunner be able to rotate the turret on most tanks even when the driver is turned out. Tanks like the m1a1 abrams could still rotate the turret as the hatch is not blocking anything. However, the m2a2 bradley should still NOT be able to rotate the turret because of the huge driver hatch. Like usual one should always look on these things in a logical way to decide what is possible and what not. This would also help in speeding the game up a little bit. For infantry, things like being able to move while holding binocs, being able to move at the normal speed with a ready launcher weapon (but longer time to regain accuracy/decrease wobble when stopping again) and being able to reload while moving (however having it take much longer, and still need to stop when prone) would also be very appreciated. This are all things possible in real life and do in no way bring the game to a more arcade type of gameplay. In fact, it would increase atmosphere.

Tanks should be as fast downwards as they are on even ground. There is simply no point that tanks can increase speed by moving down a hill. Unlike the 'nature' of wheeled vehicles, tracked vehicles will NOT increase speed that way - at least not to a noticeable degree. On the other hand, lower hills should normally not slow down a tank as much as they do right now in OFP.