Peekee

Surely there are two points here. 1) Simulating the recoil. (Physics model and weapon?) 2) Simulating the skill off the controling the recoil. (More of a gameplay/realism debate) I am sure it would be possible to have the physics model make 1) super realistic. However, that alone would be pointless leaving the player to do all the work of controling recoil via the mouse.There has to be 2). A model of how the soldier controls the weapon and tries to bring the jolt from the recoil back to the starting position. I thought the way ofp worked on iron sights was the same way as it worked on the cross hair sights in that there were two points: a) Where you wanted to aim and; b) Shere the gun was pointed. So recoil knocked b) off  but left a) the same. It is then up to the model of the soldier that controls how the gun is brought back to a). For gaming reasons seams a reasonable balance between realism and playability. However, some things to think about (or things that I think sound cool): The skill/fatigue of a soldier could change the ability to move from b) to a) Perhaps some guns recoil could alter a) e.g. slight random shift depending on characteristics of weapon on recoil. Again this could be tied into skill/fatigue.

hmmm, yup there is never enough information about editing no matter where you look you have to do a good search (else spend a while just trying things out randomly) to have a chance to find what you want. Couple of things I wish that had been released on an official web site. 1) Names of all weapons, ammo types, units, buildings, trees, etc. 2) List of animations for characters. I'm sure there have been other things that annoyed me at the time when I could not find any information on them but nothing else springs to mind...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ July 01 2002,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I have a Dragunov, then I switch to handgun when entering a village, so CQB. However, I think I never shot it once <span id='postcolor'> you watch AI with sniper rifles they do the same it is well funky

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ June 25 2002,09:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">New "Resistance" engine features (like specular reflections, smooth terrain or user-adjustable visibility or sockets netcode) will be available in OFP missions and on OFP islands, if you will use Resistance executable to play them (which is possible). The purpose of leaving "old" OPF installation intact is mostly to maintain compatibility with "old" OFP 1.4x servers. This "old" installation will be unchanged and it will not have any new features.<span id='postcolor'> Whilst I can understand that there is a need to keep features developed for OFP:Res out of "old" OFP (else nobody would buy Resistance they would just get a patch), I am disappointed to hear that it looks like there will be no future patches for "old" OFP. Surely there are bug fixes, tweaks and maybe even netcode improvements deveolped with OFP:Res which could be passed on to the "old" OFP.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (placebo @ June 21 2002,19:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ June 21 2002,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1.6 MP Test is beta and it contains many bugs that cause its performance to be less than optimal. We hope most of them is fixed for Resistance upgrade.<span id='postcolor'> Suma will Opf:R work with Kyro2's? Cos 1.60 doesn't <span id='postcolor'> I have a Kyro2 chipset card and 1.60 works fine... the only problems related to my card that I have ever had with OFP was when I had the drivers that came with the card... Could well be the case that you just need the latest drivers..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (amos m @ May 19 2002,16:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ta. Thanx sz. Lol @ unpronouncable. Right on. Are you guys seriously insulted by this? And I looked for those reality mods on that site. I couldn't find them. Could you tell us where they're located?<span id='postcolor'> Lol, the temptation to make a stupid over the top flaming post about how all of you guys being insulted by each other really pisses me off. And how as such you are all a bunch of ****less ******s. But then sarcasm will kill you be careful.

you have to wonder if it will be destructable... If it is then hopefully it wont just crumple like houses, vehicles. (one of the few things about the game that really gets on my tits is crumpled buildings)... Would be really nice to see chunks of it fall off but perhaps that is beyond the engine

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suma @ May 16 2002,13:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PowerMage @ May 16 2002,00:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You have to reduce the ammount of weapons you put into a box... else they'll pop out.<span id='postcolor'> Each ammo box is now able to hold 500 weapons and 2000 magazines. This is still pretty high number (in reality maybe 50 rifles could be stored in one box). If someone is using ammo boxes to contain huge number of weapons, it may cause problems you have seen. It is very likely final version will behave the same way.<span id='postcolor'> depends... I often write missions with a few crates containing a lot of ammo... for instance I would typically use... this addweaponcargo ["AK47", 100]; this addmagazinecargo ["AK47", 100]; this addweaponcargo ["AK47CZ", 100]; this addweaponcargo ["AK47GrenadeLauncher", 100]; this addmagazinecargo ["GrenadeLauncher", 100]; this addweaponcargo ["PK", 100]; this addmagazinecargo ["PK", 100]; this addweaponcargo ["SVDDragunov", 100]; this addmagazinecargo ["SVDDragunov", 100]; this addweaponcargo ["HK", 100]; this addmagazinecargo ["HK", 100]; this addweaponcargo ["Kozlice", 100]; this addmagazinecargo ["Kozliceshell", 100]; this addmagazinecargo ["Kozliceball", 100]; this addweaponcargo ["STEYR", 100]; this addmagazinecargo ["STEYRmag", 100]; which puts it well over 500

figured this one out my self the problem was that trigger also caused the flag to return to the flag pole (and change its texture... There is not a flag raising animation is there???) thus as soon as one computer saw the guy with the flag it would trigger, produce the titletext on it screen and move the flag back before the other computer had a chance to see the guy had the flag in the first place... problem easily solved by putting a slight delay on the flag being returned to the pole. In a way the problem was caused by lag just tiny unnoticable lag

anyone ?

Have a problem sounds simple enough but I cant figure it out. Basically, I have a trigger that executes when some one takes a flag in a normal way, west == side flagowner Flag1 And on activation: titletext[format ["%3 takes the flag for the Americans!\nStatus - West %1, East %2", usScore, rusScore, name(flagowner Flag1)], "Plain down"]; Now the problem is that the text does not appear on all screens in multiplayer. Instead it will appear only on some screens, not even necessarily on the screen of the person that took the flag, infact I can see no patern as to which screens it appears on. I do not think that this is just caused by lag, as it has happened when testing with people with low pings. I have tried changeing the trigger type between None and Switch but does not make any difference. And hae tried various other conditions (including normal isnull condition used for flags) but they all appear to have the same problem. Well I have no idea, so please help if you can work it out.

I have designed a few missions for use on multiplayer games and something has irritated me for a while now. It is nearly impossible to use 3rd party addons for multiplayer missions on public servers. There will always be a large percentage of players that do not have the 3rd party addons used in a mission and they will simply crash out or otherwise error and have to leave. I am not sure if there is any easy way round this if so I would be glad to hear it, but I have a few comments/questions for the operation flashpoint peeps. There would be 2 easy ways to solve the above problem. (1) Make it possible to download addons from servers (bad because some addons are very large.) (2) To release a bundle of 3rd party addons through one of the official sites... This is a better idea because then nearly everyone would have these addons and mission/campaign designers would know this and be able to use those addons freely. The people who make such addons would probably be more than happy to have their addons displayed through the official sites if asked. And the site could also make it clear that they hold no responsibility for damage etc cause by the 3rd party addons in the bundle. So, is there likely to be any change in the situation that would make it easy to use 3rd party addons on public servers?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HBK @ Mar. 14 2002,17:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well i'm going offtopic here , i just want to say one thing : G A M E P L A Y I'm afraid such games would screw it up, and that would be bad for everyone. There's so many games screwing it up already.<span id='postcolor'> Could not agree more... I mean look at CS... Still the most popular game online because (amongst other reasons) it has a hint of realism but is basically a run around action game with no long term consequences, you die, you respawn, you die, you respawn...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hardliner @ Mar. 26 2002,14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I want all the horrors of war. I want it to be as real as it gets. If some of you don't want or like the idea... THEN DON'T BUY IT! DON'T just attack it!<span id='postcolor'> Dont know if most of the worst horrors of war could easily be put into any game... I mean blood and guts might be some people's ideas of the horrors of war but, although I have no personal experience of war I guess that the worst part is spending days and days under constant threat never knowing if you are safe. Of all the games I have played OFP gives the best approximation to this but on no where near the same scale... And besides if you get bored you can always walk away and get on with real life. Then there is another point the worst horror of war has to be the deaths of people close to you... There is just no easy way that this could be implemented into a game, and if it was people would not want it... By which I mean not actually killing people but at least stopping from playing with them for a (short) while... But, the realisim just just increases with the length of time... For one game it might be ok to loose a team/clan mate, but what if my clan mate getting killed in one game meant that I would not be able to play with him for another week/month/year? You see my point? It is that kind of realism that people dont want in computer games. OTOH, many games have an element of this, and having to wait longer or having a higher cost of death and thus having a greater value of your (character's) life makes the game much more exciting. Putting this in a team situation would also make things more exciting making you more dependent on your team mates and vice versa. Then again who wants to mess with all that crap I just want action and blood and guts... All in all there is no perfect balance on realisim in games.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Jan. 31 2002,11:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Common logic would suggest that a .50 cant penetrate a MBT's armor. For instance lets look at a ww2 bazooka. It failed miserably in korea against the current russian build armour. So why would a .50 do it? if that was the case why didnt they just equip units with .50's. As a civilian i can see the bonusses of a .50 over a bazooka type weapon. Higher Sustained ROV is the first thing that comes to mind. Having heard stories from ppl on this forum about the m113's armour and how PK bullits appear to penetrate that under extremely favorable situations i supppose it could penetrate that. HOWEVER i have seen ppl shooting a .50 cal at tanks on discovery channel, but if my memory serves me well ( "the band" qoute  ) the bullits they used was a experimental AP round which could be steared due to a movable front section and was called something like "mini-SABOT". Seeing how that was a prototype large scale fielding of those rounds seems unlikely to me. Finally why in pete's sake are MBT fit with big guns when a mere .50 (or multiple one's)  would suffice. Modern day funding for armies being as they are and the price of a .50 and a modernday cannon in mind the idea of a .50 taking out modern MBT's seems ridiculous. if it could ever MBT would have it ..... and they dont. If you want to say it penetrates MBT's armour then explain me why MBT's have large guns and not .50's ? Supah<span id='postcolor'> firstly, here is a very interesting link... http://www.snipercentral.com/caliber.htm "Don’t bother using this rifle against human targets, focus on hard targets, its no problem to take out an APC a mile away (of course with proper ammo, only available to Law Enforcement and the Military)" In WWII they lacked the ammo, although I think the Russians had some kind of large calibre anti-tank rifle... (cant remember details) The reason tanks have guns "large guns" and not .50's is that there is a difference between being able to penatrate armour and being able to destroy a target.