RedRogue

request denied

I use to work on Laptops, repairing and breaking them down/building them out of parts. The only major disadvantage I can say laptops have now days is Heat. Sure the proccessor is just as fast as desktops and the video is up to par, but all the other stuff Memory/System Bus/ North and South Bridges/ Hard Drives/ Removable Drives, are slower than their desktop counter parts. Speed = Heat, in a laptop heat is a major design issue because now you have everything in a desktop crammed into a very tiny case and are lucky if you get to include one small fan, as you can't use a very large fan to help cool because people won't want a laptop that sounds like a blow dryer.

http://www.alienware.com/index_yesflash.asp (Edited by RedRogue at 6:44 am on Dec. 9, 2001)

Unlikely, There is no SDK or 3d plugin for a model to be imported into the game available.

Uh standard viewing distance is 600m, all the clipping fog does is obscure the clipping so it doesn't look like the world just ends at 600m.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from TheRealAlan on 6:58 am on Dec. 8, 2001 Haha Mister Frag, you try running OPF on a GeForce2 MX at 1024x768 in 32 bit color-- you'll be watching a slideshow. It runs smooth as silk on mine in 16bit color but crappy in 32bit, which is why i wish the w-buffer worked. Stinks that it's older drivers that work, I guess we either have to live with it running bad and looking good or running good and looking bad, if you've got a slower GeForce2. <span id='postcolor'> Geforce 2 MX (Creative 3D Annilator MX) 1024x768, 32-bit color mode Latest Detonator Drivers ---- Absolutely no problems here, smooth as can be.

Sure enable it if possible, Just NO NEW BUGS! ---- How come that sounds familiar

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Die Alive on 6:42 pm on Dec. 5, 2001 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from BlueJames on 10:09 am on Dec. 5, 2001 how'd this post get so long?<span id='postcolor'>We all agreed to disagree on this subject. Â That's how it got so long. -=Die Alive=- <span id='postcolor'> I object.

Are you on a T3 line directly (highly unlikely). Or on a division of it at work or school. If it is the latter you are not really on a T3 but on a server along with several other servers sharing the T3 most likely. There is also no telling how many firewalls are between you and that T3 if this is the case. Personally I've never got a net game to work well in this enviroment, but maybe someone here has found the solution.

If you crouch and shoot the ground right in front of you it takes 11 bullets and then you die, no blood on you anywhere either. Maybe the bullet impacts are infact tiny explosions much like the larger ones from a grenade or law. All I know that these aren't richoets (spelling?). Cause it isn't exactly the 11th bullet everytime hitting right next to you that kills you.

Both the SVD and the M21 are just fine.

Hmm well the SA-2 is a bit too large and a bit to old to be effective against anything other than a C-130 maybe. Its a medium to long range missile which really isn't the combat enviroment present in OFP. A more suitable mobile SAM would be. The HMMVW Avenger: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/avenger.htm And the BRDM-2 SA-9 Gaskin: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-9.htm Since both the vechile chasis are in the game or going to be soon, and both the Stinger and Strela Missles are in the game I wouldn't be a incredably hard addition. And since it can take 1-3 missile hits to down a chopper or plane they wouldn't be too overpowering. The only flaw is the HMMVW Avenger didn't come into service until 1990. But it wouldn't reallly bother me cause it would balance out the SA-9 Gaskin, and I play Soviet most of the time anyway. If included BIS could work out the 8 missile load vs. 4 missile load imbalance in their own way. I'd just say give the Avenger 4 missiles cause it wouldn't last to long in a OFP combat anway.

If they can only argue against the idea of bombers, then you can only defend it once, otherwise you are just being a hipocrit. (spelling?) Personally I don't see a small bomber being that bad at all, But maybe an old AC-47 Spooky would be fun, 3 7.62mm Minigatlings and a sight on the left side of the cockpit to target them loosely. The guns where fixed so there would be no targeting of vechiles (like you could hurt them with 7.62mm) anyway. Hmmm to bad though i just realised that even though all the guns would be fixed an controlled by the pilot, you couldn't have 3 of them firing at the same time anyway cause the OFP game engine doesn't allow for it. so It wouldn't be much better than the UH-60 MG with manual fire on.

Not really, In 1985 after the M1A1 upgrade development had already begun and initial testing had starting. The military correctly decided "Well If I'm gonna have all these M1s sitting around anyway why don't I bring them all up to the future M1A1 standards as much as I can. So the updrading began in 1985, but wasn't into full swing until much later in the year.

Ok well apparently <url></url> isn't the way to make a link here, anyone care to point out the proper way? Also the M1A1 and M1A2 look almost identical from the outside save a few minor differences. Oh, also that smaller MG is the M240 7.62mm for the loader which can be dismounted for local security or switched to the Commanders position if the M2 fails. M1s, M1A1s, and M1A2s had both of the top MGs.

Off topic here, But, would you please read <url>http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1.htm</url> The top picture is a M1 NOT a M1A1. There was the M1 Abrams with a 105mm rifled cannon. Then in 1985 as the first intial M1A1s rolled off the lines with the new 120mm smooth bore the M1s where upgraded to M1A1 specification. (Cheaper than building whole new ones). The M1A2 is a further enhancement of the M1A1 with upgraded electronics and survillance equipment. In 1985 there would be NO M1A1s on such a small minor area this game is placed in. However neither would there be Apaches (also limited numbers and far from this engagement zone, nor humvess really.) Which brings me to my conclusion, you can have them but I want my T-84. Seems only logical that if premium NATO equipment was available so would be there Soviet.

You might want to consider one thing however. And this might also be a reason why a model plugin or SDK for people to make their own weapons/vechiles hasn't been released yet. We all know that you tend to spend more time trying to get into a game due to the unforgiving lack of a join in progress feature, than we actually spend playing the game. (MP time only.) Now you say if you don't like a mod/addon if it where available don't install it. Well without control of official addons of large nature it would be difficult to find a game that you have all the nessasary mods for if modding was freely available for import. There isn't much room to describe what is need in the mission description anyway, and nor is there room for you to find out before game. So however I would think it would be nice for people to addon and make all sorts of new stuff, I would think it would be great when/if BIS or CS or whoever releases a SDK that they would collect and review third party addons submitted to them and then package them up for a official addon. Them retaining control of what can or cannot be added does have this benifit for me, as I would not want to spend 90% of my MP time looking and getting dropped from games cause I didn't have this addon or that addon, since I spend 60% just looking for a good game as it currently is. Everyone has an opinion, we might like it, we might hate it but they have the right to one anyway.