nyles

There are still some things here and there which were still not taken care of (see constructive criticism thread) but overall Resistance is worth the money. I don't regret buying it, so go ahead.

39. SpecOps: As kojak already mentioned, both blackops and spetznaz do not appear as the super elite units (the best of the best of the best of the...) they are praised during the campaign cutscenes. I don't want them to turn supernatural however some slight advantages over normal infantry apart from equipment and them being less likely spotted, I would suggest maybe have them move without sound unless they are running and maybe even take much longer until they start to breath heavily. Even though, you can fool AI enemies pretty easy, it's really tough to sneak upon human enemies. Small things like the above mentioned would already make a difference. 40. 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.

38. Movement on hills: If your AI squad wants to climb hills, you may have noticed that they always manage to get up faster than human players. Currently, you are forced to slow movement even on not so steep hills. My suggestion is to change the whole hill climb code that way that you basically are slowed down like right now, but with the option to run upwards when pressing the run key. This running however is only a bit faster than the allowed normal speed. For example, if you can only walk normally up that hill with no running allowed, like on medium steep hills, you should be able to still use running with the way I suggest. If you are only allowed to walk slowly (the same speed when you are zoomed in) with no normal and no running allowed, you should instead be able choose running, but the running would only be in normal speed then but still causing heavy breathing. Basically running should ALWAYS be allowed but running would only be allowed at one movement level faster. The list below shows the steepness of the hills (1 being very steep and 4 being even ground) and the allowed way of movement on this type of hill. #/normal/running *** replacing 1/crawl/fast crawl *** stays like it works currently 2/slow/normal *** replaces where slow only walking is allowed 3/normal/fast *** replaces where normal walking only is allowed 4/normal/fast *** stays like the current walking on horizontal ground Of course all this should also apply to AI controlled units. I would also consider making some extremly steep cliffs like those near the river on nogova impassable with maybe even one more movement level before where you can only crawl normal. Should be very seldom, though. The movement downhill should behave exactly like the movement upwards with rare possibilites to hurt the legs or even die like it is possible right now.

from constructive criticism thread with some other bugs added: 1. Pistols aim way too high. You need to bring their elevation of fire down into sync with the iron sights 2. Order 'weapon binocular' does not properly work on most units. it either takes ages until they switch to them or there are other bugs like with the new police officers, who can be ordered but then their head is turned sideways so they do not look through the binoculars. sometimes though, like when ordering units to 'scan horizon', they seem to properly use them on their own. hard to reproduce. 3. AI yells 'where are you' even when still having visual contact. vehicles and especially airborne should have an extended range until 'where are you' conditions are met. 4. In multiplayer games 50cal. guns mounted on M151´s bounce and wobble if you get behind them, making it impossible to aim immediately. 5. There are still many buildings with immense clipping problems. Mostly this is only noticeable when prone, like when lying in that new open barn on nogova. Furtermore it seems that many buildings from the old islands are even harder to enter due to clipping (i.e. the castle tower). 6. You can attack any civilians without being shot back by armed civilians or police. 7. Parachutes should not smoke when killed. 8. Vehicles don't take falling damage when driving down cliffs etc.. (church near the bridge on nogova) 9. AI has problems to navigate on bridge. 10. Turned out AI gunners can still rotate the turret and engage enemies. (i.e. on bradley) 11. the players picture in the squad overview on the bottom of the screen stays red even if you healed or rearmed. 12. Orders by an AI commander can kick you out of a vehicle exposing you to enemy fire. 13. Client PCs dont save the mp maps anymore. 14. Exiting boats will place you far away from the boat.

Yeah, this definetly would be a healthy thing. The constructive criticism thread was indeed planned to offer solutions and to suggest and justify changes not as a plain buglist. I fully agree that it might be a tad difficult for the developers to filter bugs out of the massive list of suggestions which of course are just opinions but still fans should continue to have the constructive criticism thread for them to express their ideas. The division of bugs and suggestion seems to be a very good idea, even if the realisation will most likely be the way, that the things listed in the bugs-only thread will appear in the constructive criticism thread as well, just a bit flowery and combined with personal statements, making the bugs-only list be some sort of index for the other thread. I will browse through my thread and reduce some points to the bug aspect only and repost them in that buglist, too.

35. Weapon animations: I recently noticed that the motorcycle has a stand that turns by 90° when you stop, and moves back up again, once you drive forward again.....kinda lika a bipod. If it is possible with vehicle models, it for sure would also be possible for weapon models. The above mentioned 'deploy bipod' option for machineguns could indeed be possible then. If it would furthermore be possible to turn the player model not on itself but on the bipod axis kinda like with all those inofficial stationary machinegun addons, we would at last have well designed light machineguns in the game. Many games like Day of Defeat for the HL engine or the recently released AmericasArmy offer such functionality for machineguns, which IMHO gives those weapons a very own role in both combat and experience. The option to deploy bipods should really be considered, and if combined with better accuracy while deployed would make the mg fans like myself cry out in joy. One of the main things I always disliked on OFP was the lack of animations regarding proper reload and weapon handling in general. Even before CS, reload animations for example (not saying they were realistic, but they added to the acceptance and atmoshphere of firearms) were a common sight in most 1st person shooters. I'm not asking to add proper animations for every weapon in an upcomming patch, as this is very unlikely to happen due to the simple shitload of work caused by this demand. However, there are quiet a number of weapons in game that could need some spicing up like a rotating vulcan gatling gun (rotating should be possible, already done with grenade launchers), the above mentioned bipod idea and a law launcher which auto expands and thus is only half the size when carried on the back. 35. Player animations: Like with weapon animations, there is quiet some space for improvements. Especially missing animations for people that don't use weapons should be added. Currently, even civilians sit down, stand up and enter vehicles as if they were using invisible weapons. Furthermore players that only wear a pistol, still walk as if they were holding the strap of a rifle on their back, when the pistol is in the holster. Animations are not model based, but changes seem to automatically affect every model. Therefore the additions shouldn't be that hard to implement. Lastly, I want to point out that it would be great for modmakers to have a bunch of different animations at their disposal, even though they do not appear in the original game. Call it a gift to the mod community. Maybe some sort of poll on which additional animations are wanted the most by modders, would be a nice idea. 36. Sights: I would like to see a rework of some of the featured sight and scope views, currently in the game. Mainly the law launcher scope view should be replaced with an appropriate sight view as this weapon simply does not come with a scope (at least not by default). Weapons with attached grenade launchers lack a decent sight for grenade launching. Even with the pure grenade launchers, which do have a sight, the aiming is based on experience and guessing only. Another view I want to criticize is the Nato tank view. The Russians have lots of info on the scope like target range indicator and other stuff. Even if this is not relevant of the game, I think the lack of such eyecandy on the Nato scopes is a little sad. I have never actually looked through the scopes of an Abrams, so maybe there are simply no such bars and numbers all of over the place, but I kinda doubt that. Anyways, it's not that important but would still be a nice addition to eyecandy. 37. weapon model attachment on player models. Unlike many other games, Flashpoint has a very nice optical aspect on who carries what weapon. Having my weapons, currently not in hand, be worn on the back is a feature I don't want to miss in any game. It's not only realisic, it also adds to target identification and atmosphere in general. There is one point though, which I disliked on the whole feature since the first appearance of the Flashpoint demo: The alignment of the weapon models on the player models. In most cases, the weapons are several inches away from the player, hovering somewhere in the air. With launchers and other secondary equipment there is yet another downside effect. They all are carried way to high up the shoulder, making them pop up behind the player model. My solution for this would be to lower the attachement points for the weapon models on the left shoulder (launchers), so that they are less likely to be seen by the enemy. Large weapons like stinger or strela launchers would still be very easy to spot. Regaring, the distance of the weapon model to the player models, it a simple realignment of the attachment points could do as well. The problem I see with all this however is related to the question wether you have to change all player models or if you have to change only the weapon models. If only weapon models need to be recompiled, this should not be that hard to do, as you only have to change the attachment point on certain weapon models. However if player models need to be remodelled, the whole work arising from this would most likely not be worth the effort, as this would result in most player fan-made reskins to be ported to the new skeleton as well.

its partly fixed for me. vehicle engines, which crackled the most before, do not sound weird at al, anymore. However, on the other side, firing sounds are really fucked when shooting while aiming through sights. when shooting from normal view, they are okay though. EDIT: I'm reverting my statement. Now the sound is totally fucked in the main menue and even partly in game. Even though the old bug is gone (which was easily worked around by changing view to 3rd person and back), the rest of the sound seems totally disorted. Strange thing is that this only happens with OFP. Every other game, movie or music have crystal clear quality. Flashpoint seems to be the only game affected so far...Makes me sad. Bis, please please please try to work something out with Creative Labs on this. Turning off hardware acceleration and/or eax doens't make a difference.

The fal and g3 use the same sound for me as well. Point 34 in the constructive criticism thread deals with damage values in flashpoint. It would be nice if you post your comments about this: here!

34. 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 / chest / legs / weapons) .50cal + 12.7x109 / 1 / 1-2 / m2, m2east, m2 co-axial + nsv co-axial 7.62x51 + 7.62x54 / 1 / 2-3 / g3, fal, m60, m21, m240 co-axial + svd, pk 7.62x39 / 1-2 / 2-3 / ak47 5.56x45 / 1-3 / 2-3 / m16, steyr aug, g36 5.45x39 / 2-3 / 2-3 / ak74 7,62x25 + .45 / 2-3 / 2-4 / tt33 + (none 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: Yesterday, 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, 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. Comments on these ideas are welcome like always, even though I have to agree that opinions on the exact realisation could vary slightly.

heh, yeah, g3 and gal do not only share the same sound in-game, their images in the briefing/selection screen are also swapped and furthermore, their damage values are totally off, considering that both are supposed to be 7.62mm rifles. Yet, their damage sometimes seems even below 5.56mm rifle niveau...would be really nice to see that tweaked a bit.

Exactly NightEye, that's related to point 29. If it would be possible to interrupt your own radio commands this won't be any problem, however this then should mean that your orders are only executed if you have casted your order to the end. Otherwise, the interruption of any order of yours by simply placing another order is way too efficient. It neither should be the way that you must not end your order for it to take effect but nor should it take ages for some orders to block your comm channels even if a more important thing has to be transmitted. Hope you got what I tried to point out. Â

28. tanks again: 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. 29. Comms: Improve the radio system by implementing a more efficient usage. Examples are a shorter calling of the squad members like: "all except 2 and 3, move to blablabla". There should also be some sort of hierarchy within the radio to allow quicker response for the immediate surrounding. Starting from the bottom and then going upwards seem the most logical way, thus group commands like attack orders, movement orders or smimilar should have prority to generel announcements. 1. crew commands, yellow V V 2. squad commands, green V v 3. side commands, light blue All other channels like direct speaking and generel messages are of no importance as there are no radio transmissions made with them. However even within squads - or lets say on the same communication channel - there should be some sort of priority for orders unlike sightings of enemies or general statements like injuries, fuel status or else. 30. The vulcan behaves kinda strange while being in water unlike the the other M133 based vehicles. Its mass point seems completly off center so that the vehicle is turned more into the water (tilted) on one side causing a weird look. should be fixed for eyecandy purposes.

I have no doubts that BIS *could* get this working...if they want to.

good, but there is still no official one. As long as stuff like this won't be implemented from an official source, there is almost no chance, seeing it featured in custom maps for tourneys etc.. Furthermore its about fairness. west has 2 jeeps, 2 trucks, 2 transport helis. etc.. east always just one. it would not only add variety but also balance east and west and allow mappers to create more even missions.

There is this nice counterpart to the US .50cal, which basically looks like a huge pk. I think it won't be a problem to simply change the m2east model in the main .pbo file to one of these. That way every mission, using m2east weapons would automatically replace them with the new weapon.

You are most likely confusing Resistance with those Independance Lost screenies that were floating around some time ago. But you are right, I would have liked to see a few more units as well. Even small conversions of existing units would have nice. A recolored trabant or civilian truck, an open toped Ural without the white cover, maybe 1-2 UAZ variants (pk anyone?), A mi-17 without those huge missile racks but a pk instead, etc.. Simple things like that would have added a lot of variety already and drastically improved the atmosphere. This combined with 2-3 new units from VBS which once were "likely to be implemented in OFP, too", would have been great.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> AK74SU: the "silver" design of this weapon is actually a SpetsNaz AK47, not a AK74, yet it still uses 5.45 mm ammo. If BIS intended it to use the same ammo as the AK74 it should have been the AKSU-74 (there is no AK74SU), which has the wood&black color of the AK74. The silver color stands out in the hands of the otherwise well-camouflaged SpetsNaz <span id='postcolor'> I second that!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> AK74SU: the "silver" design of this weapon is actually a SpetsNaz AK47, not a AK74, yet it still uses 5.45 mm ammo. If BIS intended it to use the same ammo as the AK74 it should have been the AKSU-74 (there is no AK74SU), which has the wood&black color of the AK74. The silver color stands out in the hands of the otherwise well-camouflaged SpetsNaz <span id='postcolor'> I second that!

I'm still for an additional key for brakeing. Leave the current speed decrease time in for vehicles, make tanks stop almost instantly and in generel alter their behaviour to be less car like, and add this new brake key for all vehicles which will make most vehicles stop in no time. Maybe yet another idea would be to have a new choice for the command menu, with which you can set the handbrake so that the vehicle or tank will not start rolling down hills. A halt with a handbrake on cars while driving should make you slide, though. I think this would be a nice addition.

I'm still for an additional key for brakeing. Leave the current speed decrease time in for vehicles, make tanks stop almost instantly and in generel alter their behaviour to be less car like, and add this new brake key for all vehicles which will make most vehicles stop in no time. Maybe yet another idea would be to have a new choice for the command menu, with which you can set the handbrake so that the vehicle or tank will not start rolling down hills. A halt with a handbrake on cars while driving should make you slide, though. I think this would be a nice addition.

Still, the problem remains with AI only tank platoons. As the AI orders crew and passengers to mount other empty seats of squad controlled vehicles, adding that spare 'ride in back' seat, would sort this out.

Still, the problem remains with AI only tank platoons. As the AI orders crew and passengers to mount other empty seats of squad controlled vehicles, adding that spare 'ride in back' seat, would sort this out.

I always thought TT33's used endless magazines...at least that's what John Woo tought me. j/k Seriously, the pistols need a lot of work, yes. ammo loadouts, accuracy and recoil should be definetly changed. Furthermore I would also like to see correct pistols like the makerov and the colt1911. Just add them with a patch and replace the default loadouts of those units in the game which come with pistols. Could be a bit tricky, but IMHO it would be worth the effort. Ohh, and tracers on pistols should really go.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">19. When moving around with an 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 all 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. <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">19. When moving around with an 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 all 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. <span id='postcolor'>