Rogue

In RL the G36 is very accurate for a .223 caliber weapon, at 400m an average shooter should be able to place his shots in a relatively small area. Even at 600m dropping training targets with the first bullet is not difficult. Ingame the damage modeling of G36 .223 bullet needs to be looked over, as dying from a hit in the leg or foot instantly seems quite wrong to me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Been around alot eh? Well, It appears that it's 4 on 1 on this issue. Wobble, Mr Frag, 110, myself, vs you. We all seem to know the difference between an "assault rifle" and a "battle rifle" and the U.S. Army seems to know the difference as well. What country are you from anyway? Just because YOU haven't heard about something does not mean we are all wrong. Oh, as a matter of fact, I am currently in the "service" in the Canadian Army Reserves. I am in the Infantry and have heard the terms "battle rifle" and "assault rifle" used more than once. Trust me, I know the difference. Thats plain incorrect, optimal combat and engagement distance for the G36 is 500m, max. engagement distance 800m, these are no guestimate values, these are the specifications as they are instructed. The G36 is also used in a LMG role, you figure the rest. About that 800m and a 0.223 projectile not being able to drop some was ment as a joke right I have NO idea of what you are trying to say, what are you trying to tell me? Did you even read my earlier post? Did you not understand something? You think I'm wrong??, LOL Maybe your right and my military training has been incorrect Please read my post again, carefully. We have already done about all the explaining we can do for you. Its up to you to read it carefully and understand it. Trust us, we know what we're talking about!  Tyler<span id='postcolor'> "4 wrongs doesn´t make 1 right" we´d say over here. Yes, i have read your former post and i said it´s incorrect, simply because you stated that a 0.223 wouldn´t be effective on targets at 800m (not being able to drop them). I told you are wrong, what else can i write, either you take it or you leave it. The fact that the G36 has markers for 800m shooting should be already sufficent for you. I said it before and i say it again, there are no Battlerifles in terms of caliber classification, or roles. Battlerifle, just as combat rifle are generalisation terms used for all rifles that are used in combat, got nothing to do with certain rifles or classifications. Show me the FM covering the M-14 "Battlerifle", you can´t, because there isn´t such thing, it´s either rifle or assault rifle. Just show me an official army site using the term Battle Rifle in the same manner as you do, even when you search via google CAR-15´s and other carbines will be dubbed battlerifles, the authors seem to be just as professional as you are.....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The terms are real, and even if they are different in other countries, the respective weapons groups to which they apply fill different roles. Assault rifles are light-weight weapons, often with folding or collapsible stocks. Most of them have full-auto or burst-mode fire control systems, and can frequently be fired with one hand. They often also trade cartridge power for size/weight and/or controllable full-auto fire. Battle or infantry rifles are much heavier, have fixed stocks, are chambered for higher-power cartridges, and often do not have full-auto capability. I have not served in the military, but have owned military firearms for almost two decades. I have participated in tactical firearms training (rifles, handguns, SMGs) with active-duty and retired members of most branches of the military, including Navy SEALs, DOE nuclear powerplant protectors, several SWAT departments, FBI HRT members, and even two Russian SPETZNAS members.<span id='postcolor'> I´m sorry but you are wrong, at least for german, austrian and swiss military classifications. The G36 fullfills the same role, is classified with the same term as the G3, both called Assault Rifles, or just Rifles, "Sturmgewehr" or "Gewehr", both, no different terms or roles. If they fullfill different tasks as you are trying to make believe, i ask you why the M16 replaced the M14, why did the G36 replace the G3.... There is no standard issue M14 in the US Army nowadays, other than for sniping purposes (extremely rare) or with the Special Forces maybe, because an individual has a hang on a certain weapon. You can´t, as someone correctly pointed out, shoot beyond 300-400m precisely without optics, therefore 0.308 caliber became obsolete as the standard assault rifle caliber because 0.223 can cover this range more than well while having more ammo and easier handling. Those weapons in .308 caliber or above, that shoot precisely with the aid of optics beyond this range are called sniper rifles if they fullfill the precision requirements and are being used in the sniper role. A .308 rifle not suited for sniper tasks also shoots at "intermediate" range, just as .223, even with optics. At 800m a 0.223 bullet will inflict enough damage to kill right out, that´s mainly caused by disintegration of the round in the target. When a NATO 0.308 round impacts, it will most likely have a clean passthrough, without much damage to organs besides the actual projectile path. An 90° upper chest hit to a male with average body constitution will make the 0.308 round turn maybe once around its axis before it leaves the body. A 0.223 round will have a shrapnel effect in the body, it disentegrates because of the high velocity, causing very severe wounds and damage to organs and tissue in the surrounding of the impact point.  According to your definition "Battlerifles" must begin somewhere after .308, as you seem to consider folding or de- and retractable stocks, for easier handling, or full auto as "light weight" typical, which in fact is a feature of many .308 assault rifles. G3, M14, FAL just to name the most wide spread and well known, these are Rifles or Assault Rifles. The term "Battle Rifle" is as official as "Scum Duster". "Battlerifles" is more likely a civil term referring to all rifles used in combat, pretty much the same as combat rifle, it doesn´t stand for caliber, weigth, fixed buttstock or anything else.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 28 2002,03:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> fyi the effective combat range of an G3 without optics is 300m (600m with optics), for a G36 it´s  up to 800m in standard config. I know of Battleships, but of no Battle Rifles....you sure you dont confuse there something?!? Rogue, you are wrong here. 110 is correct.  Any rifle wether it's a "battle rifle" chambered for 7.62 NATO or an "assault rifle" chambered for 5.56 NATO will have an "effective" range of 300m with open sights. When you put optics on it, both can go to 800m and still be "effective". The difference is, 7.62 NATO will still drop someone at 800m effectively, 5.56 NATO won't. Take this for an example, if you are armed with a "battle rifle" (eg: FN FAL) and see someone taking cover behind a tree at 200m, you shoot the tree. If you are armed with an "assault rifle" (eg: M-16) you wait 'till the person moves, or you can shoot around the tree to try and stop them from moving until someone comes along with a "battle rifle" or GPMG. You can have a weapon with a huge caliber, but with a short barrel, making the range even less than that of a high powered 0.22. I doubt it, well maybe, if the barrel of a 7.62 NATO was 2 inches!  Your point is a moot one. Most barrels on any standard issue army rifles are 16 inches or longer. The calibre (I should say: powder capacity of a cartridge + bullet weight) is the main contributor to effectiveness and range. M-249 (5.56 NATO) effective range on an area target = 800m M-240 (7.62 NATO) effective range on an area target = 1800m Tyler<span id='postcolor'> Thats plain incorrect, optimal combat and engagement distance for the G36 is 500m, max. engagement distance 800m, these are no guestimate values, these are the specifications as they are instructed. The G36 is also used in a LMG role, you figure the rest. About that 800m and a 0.223 projectile not being able to drop some was ment as a joke right

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 27 2002,04:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">110 has been correct in his posts. To nobody in particular: if you don't know what the difference between a Battle Rifle and Assault Rifle is, then you shouldn't try to argue the point with him.<span id='postcolor'> There is no difference in my country, neither do i have heard this term ever before in the US, and i´ve been around alot. Someone that actually served and doesn´t get his knowledge from online forums or other online sources would be highly welcomed to end this debate.

I heard VBS-1 will be an X-Box exclusive.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </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"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the G3, FN FAL, and M-14 are battle rifles, not assault rifles. assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge. check military definition.<span id='postcolor'> Thats a big pile of BS pal . All rifles without optics shoot at intermediate ranges, all called assault rifles. Maybe the Stormtroopers from Star Wars have Battle Rifles, no wait, that was Blasters . <span id='postcolor'> "intermediate range" refers to the cartridge size, not its effective range. THE G3, FN FAL, M1 Garand AND M-14 ARE BATTLE RIFLES, NOT ASSAULT RIFLES ACCORDING TO MILITARY DEFINITION. (US) 110<span id='postcolor'> "intermediate range refers to the cartridge size, not its effective range." Say do you have any clue what you are talking about, nevertheless you are greatly entertaining According to your selfbrewed ""definitions"" the larger the caliber the greater the range, which is entirely untrue. You can have a weapon with a huge caliber, but with a short barrel, making the range even less than that of a high powered 0.22. The effective range is a sum up of several factors, like caliber, barrel length, ballistics, optics and so on, that all results in the effective range and is directly related to such terms as short, intermediate and long range. assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge. This is what you wrote, fyi the effective combat range of an G3 without optics is 300m (600m with optics), for a G36 it´s  up to 800m in standard config. I know of Battleships, but of no Battle Rifles....you sure you dont confuse there something?!?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">everytime someone post crap about russia ,it relaly makes me depressed... <span id='postcolor'> You cant really do something about it, there are always people popping up in weapon related threads with their national inferiority complexes. Unimportant Blah blah about nothing they have a clue of, its just plain hillarious. Once you get used to it, you laugh your ass off reading their postings  .

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the G3, FN FAL, and M-14 are battle rifles, not assault rifles. assault rifles are in the intermediate range. the .308 is a "high" power rifle cartridge. check military definition.<span id='postcolor'> Thats a big pile of BS pal . All rifles without optics shoot at intermediate ranges, all called assault rifles. Maybe the Stormtroopers from Star Wars have Battle Rifles, no wait, that was Blasters .

Correction: not 200ft but 150ft.

I tried 20 times without the A10 dropping bombs, the approach via waypoints i made was straight, 200ft high with plenty of time for the pilot to aim and set the plane up properly ..............and he was not able to release a single bomb...pretty much useless i´d say. maybe the pilot has forgotten to load up the receiving device for the laser beam

Dont know if its the 1.42 upgrade or if it was already with 1.40.................. but the A-10 doesnt drop bombs on lasered targets. I tried at least 20 times putting the a10 in respective distance `actually it was the other end of the desert map´, waypoints plotted that it flew directly over the target T80. I lasered the target immediately after the mision started, but everytime no bombs are dropped by the a10 instead it retracts flaps and goes low over the target. Anyone else with this prob?

The secondary explosion on the road is a Rocket Propelled Grenade fired after the BTR-70 had been blown up by an AT-Mine.

Doh, don´t think good snipers need those unless they´re alcoholics or physical wrecks. The higher the pumping power of your heart the lower your heartbeart and the calmer you are. For a normal untrained individuum 60-80 heartbeats/min is normal, if you do alot of sports you are eventually able to reduce it under 50. You can also achive this through mental training. World class Abnoe divers have heartbeat rates around 30. Some bat species btw have 900 heartbeats/ min, 15 beats/sec, nervous little folks.

The G36 and STG-77 are neither used by the US, maybe see it this way, Special Operation Forces have an wider and more exlusive array of weapons at their Disposal than regular units. A G22 (Arctic Warfare ) or Remington 700 DM would be not far way off to implement, at least not as off as the G36 and STG-77. This also gives addon designers more freedom of nationalities (uniforms) to model. Like Adviss my vote would go to the M40A1, for a dedicated true sniper rifle, although i wouldn´t mind seing any of the rifles listed in OFP, because they´re all good.

The advance command is a nice implementation, but a bounding overwatch movement technique would be even better, as it can be seen in Ghost Recon. The method is simple, on the open field an ai soldier (or part of the group) travels about 50m while the other soldier (or other half of the group) is observing the terrain from a stationary location. If the first group has approached the 50m mark, it goes either crouched or prone, and the 2nd group starts to travel, secured by the first group- then the process repeats. If terrain with cover is available, instead of doing strictly 50m dashes, a part of the group should travel to the next cover available, even if its only 10m, then the second group travels. (Edited by Rogue at 10:29 am on Dec. 14, 2001)

Thanks, but i already knew that . I meant like its implemented in Ghost Recon, where not the whole group is walking from cover/position to cover/position at once, but automatically divide and leapfrog from position to position, while one group watches the other travels, changing roles constantly- bounding overwatch. Sure, you can do this manually with alot usage of the command menu, but thats not what i had in mind.

"multiplayer improvements" is the phrase i hoped for.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Random on 3:27 am on Dec. 19, 2001 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Rogue on 10:59 pm on Dec. 18, 2001 It´s obvious that you personally dont care about multiplayer with your slow motion connection, otherwise statements like yours wouldn´t be made. Make a poll in this forum about how many people prefer a solid multiplayer and overall gaming experience, if you cant see the truth in my words. The bugs and low performance isn´t exclusive to multiplayer, but also singleplayer. Longvity and perspective for game has always depended on multiplayer capabilities, Flashpoint hasn´t got these to an satisfying extent. This is why many server parks are unwilling to offer Flashpoint servers. <span id='postcolor'> That's a very ignorant post. If I started a poll in this forum about who would want a solid MP experience, of course most people would say they do. But that's because they obviously have an internet connection! There are a lot of people who don't have an internet connection at all, much less broadband. These are the people who prefer a solid SP experience, and don't care about multiplayer. There are more of those than you seem to realise. <span id='postcolor'> It´s also ignorant to assume that those people playing offline would be the scalemodel for further design of Flashpoint. As you correctly realised, those people cant voice themselves, they havn´t participated in the online beta test, nor in forums because they have no internet connection. They get our input and feedback to BIS in form of patches! You have an internet connection, thats why you post here, if your connection is not good enough to participate in online gaming, or you have no flatrate and your budget is to little, you are indeed irrelevant when it comes to multiplayer, sorry for saying it this drastic, but thats the way it is, especially when you say you are not intersted in MP anyways. The single player part is not going to suffer under a good multiplayer, is it that what you are fearing, that thousands of players enjoy Flashpoint online and you have to play with yourself, i couldn´t care less. It can´t be difficult to see that with multiplayer a game either lives or dies in the long run, its the most important thing as we see with all halflife clones. It´s online where all those mods are realized, its online where the community is to find, not offline. Noone would play Halflife nowadays because the graphics are outdated and concept is simplistic, but it has helluva multiplayer, thats why the game lasts for half a decade. I want the same thing with Flashpoint!

All my ranting will hopefully improve the game sometime in the future, this is why im a sceptical nay-sayer by nature- unlike many others, that take whatever a developer is throwing at their feets with delight, and a sorry sense of masochism.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from whisperFFW06 on 4:14 pm on Dec. 18, 2001 "So everyone not having a similar opinion can basically go and play quake?" No, anyone can come, and NOT say : "the demo did look better than the piece ´o crap sold in the stores." If this game is such a piece of crap, please, don't play it and don't come in. <span id='postcolor'> You´re just proving your inability to counter any of my arguments, yeah i know its hard to find arguments for ofp. I stopped playing the game after patch 1.20 was released, it got worser and worser. But that doesn´t stop me from posting on this forum from time to time and voice my oppinion, after all this is what makes a discussion, in case noone told you yet. If you can´t stand someone given you his arguments or point of view, you should avoid contact with human beings, at least with those able to communicate.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote: from Random on 1:38 pm on Dec. 18, 2001 Rogue, Please don't tell me what ALL gamers want. Personally, I don't care about multiplayer, since I only have a 56K and can't really compete. I think you'd be surprised at how many people have bought OFP for its singleplayer, and not MP. Just because you prioritise MP over SP, doesn't mean that everyone else does too. Talk about being an arrogant schmuck. And there must be something wrong with your computer if the demo of OFP ran better than the full version.<span id='postcolor'> It´s obvious that you personally dont care about multiplayer with your slow motion connection, otherwise statements like yours wouldn´t be made. Make a poll in this forum about how many people prefer a solid multiplayer and overall gaming experience, if you cant see the truth in my words. The bugs and low performance isn´t exclusive to multiplayer, but also singleplayer. Longvity and perspective for game has always depended on multiplayer capabilities, Flashpoint hasn´t got these to an satisfying extent. This is why many server parks are unwilling to offer Flashpoint servers. And fyi my computer is a 1.4 Athlon + Geforce 3 and the demo did look better than the piece ´o crap sold in the stores. Im not the only who has noticed this. Im just telling like it is, even if some of you don´t like it, because they prefer to live on in their dreamworld of shattered hopes and illusions not seing the facts anymore.

And what about Polyrestriction, i mean if you look at the low polycount models we currently have, what will be possible at all. Do we have to hack the flashpoint.exe to allow for higher polycount or something? And as konyak said, what about Animations and additional options, will it work or will it be simply a static object........so many questions little answers.

A-Lone-Wolf found a way to import/export .p3d models, as you can read over here: http://www.3dactionplanet.com/flashpoint/ "Some REALLY great news at last. It would seem A-lone-Wolf has managed to import p3d (Operationflashpoints modelling format) into GMAX (the FREE sister program of 3dstudio Max), change them, then put them back into OFP. I don't believe its possible to port completely new models into OFP, but surely this is a step towards larger mods based around new themes. I'm not sure how it's done but I'm sure the information will filter out over the next few hours/days so stay tuned. Below are a few screenshots showing OFP models in GMAX and a modified HK MP5 with telescopic butt in and out." (Edited by Rogue at 11:56 am on Dec. 18, 2001) (Edited by Rogue at 11:58 am on Dec. 18, 2001) (Edited by Rogue at 12:01 pm on Dec. 18, 2001)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">from DrDeathGNJ on 12:20 am on Dec. 18, 2001 I think the people who b*tch and Moan about OPFP have either never played it, Only played the demo or don't have the mental capacity to move beyond brainless shooters like Q3 and the like. <span id='postcolor'> Hear hear, you appear to have the ultimate insight why people doesn´t like ofp! maybe just grab yourself one of the latest pc titles and judge for yourself if Flashpoint is the reincarnation of buginfested software. The ofp demo fyi looked and played better than the fullversion, why o why is that i ask ya. I think it´s quite unnecessary to give away statements on other peoples mental capacity, if your own seems to be on the line, arrogant schmuck . </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> OPFP is by far the most realistic Military Shooter\Simulation I have ever seen. I close friend and former MARINE buddy is blown away by Flashpoint. <span id='postcolor'> There are many realistic wargames out there, just because your pal is a former marine it doesn´t makes your or his statement more valid. Flashpoint is as realistic as any other shooter in this genre, but too much things had been left outside, half-finished, buggy or nonfunctional along with other flaws in gamedesign. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The shear magnitude of what Flashpoint presents in gameplay should command only respect even from those who can't get into it. Other games like GhostRecon pale in comparison to Flahpoint. <span id='postcolor'> Know what most people want? A solid gaming experience, workable in single and multiplayer, last one with priority. They dont want to sit hours on their PC´s messing around with the game/settings, because something doesn´t run as it should, or because multiplayer is so boring on those huge maps, if they´d find a game at all. Most of these things like solid multiplayer  are not content of Flashpoint, but Ghost Recon, this is why it has already a bigger fanbase than ofp. And thats why *stupid games*, as you refer to them, work out, and flashpoint doesnt. Does the usage of vehicles make a game less stupid, does a large terrain make a game less stupid- both can be answered with a definite NO. How stupid a game plays depends on the player, if you´re not smart enough to have success in counterstrike, you wont be very successfull in flashpoint either, as its always the same, you can twist and turn it to your liking, but the principle doesn´t change in contrast to real life. Flashpoint is a stupid game like all others. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> It sickened me when I see all these games mags saying GhostRecon is the most realistic military shooter of all time. That is the most load of CRAP I have ever seen and heard. <span id='postcolor'> Deny reality and be a true rampant hardcore fan to ofp, Ghost Recon is already more successfull than ofp regarding acceptance in the multiplayer  community for obvious reasons. Probably because all other except you are dumbarses and have no clue, yeah must be that way..... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> GhostRecons environments can't even compare to Flashpoint's. GhostRecons AI is shotty at best. Either too Good or Too stupid.The command interface in GhostRecon is just above crap.The game is fun on a simplistic level and thats it. Flashpoint makes you feel like your apart of something great. <span id='postcolor'> I agree on the AI part of Ghost Recon, but same is true for ofp. However the terrain is not comparable to ofp, it firstly looks better and gives better cover than ofps flat terrain, appears more like the real thing actually. Except you of course, everyone else can get along with smaller maps, especially in mp. fact is most maps of Ghost recon are to big for a 10 men TD, for 36 players even mediocre maps are mpore than enough. Ghost recon makes something in multiplayer that ofp has huge problems with producing: F.U.N. Multiplayer is solid, and gives you solid action- what everyone wants, although at times its too boring because of the map sizes, now multiply the boredom factor by 50 and you have ofp in multiplayer. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Flashpoint has bugs of course but, its doing something no game has ever done. Combine Flight Simulators,RealTime Strategy and FPS all in one game. And I think they did it rather well. <span id='postcolor'> At least you admit flashpoint has some "tiny" bugs *shakes head* </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> So if you can't see and enjoy what Flashpoint has done and offers then go play Q3 or some mindless run and gun and stop whining. My hats off to those who see, enjoy and respect Flashpoint and its accomplishments. <span id='postcolor'> So everyone not having a similar opinion can basically go and play quake? Interesting point of view to say at least,  although i dont catch the valid point in there, more sort of weak  argumentation. (Edited by Rogue at 2:52 am on Dec. 18, 2001) (Edited by Rogue at 2:54 am on Dec. 18, 2001)