Satchel

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ June 03 2002,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I get the feeling that majority of you think that MBTs are a piece-of-cake-to-destroy.  They are bloody 60 ton pieces of machinery designed to take a hell of a punishment.  I wish you viewed them with a little more respect.  Even when a round penetrates its armor the tank is not immediately "annihilated" as you often say.  Unless the round hits a vital system, or the crew then the tank will be just fine, having only obtained a hole in its armor.<span id='postcolor'> You don´t have to forget that a tank (at least the ones we got now, not FCS ) are operated by humans. What happens if an AP round successfully penetrates the armor is that extreme high pressure and heat is entering the tank, along with metal fragments, caused by bursting armor located on the inside of the vehicle and projectile leftovers, spraying into the combat compartment or other locations. Even if there is a chance of munition or systems inside the vehicle not immediately being destroyed, the crew located in the area under/behind the hit location is affected very negatively by this, to say it gentle. Make no mistake, we are not talking about some "miniguns" as seen in Blackhawk down or 20mm Vulcans, but the GAU-8/A! Compared to Volkswagen Beatle. more: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-13.htm The PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary DU penetrator ammunition: Sizes: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They consist of a lightweight aluminum body, cast around a small 'penetrator' of smaller caliber than the shell. (The caliber is about 15mm.) It projects from the blunt body section, and the shell has a thin aluminum 'windscreen' to keep the shape aerodynamic. The penetrator is made of depleted uranium, a byproduct of the enrichment process used to make nuclear fuel. The material has an extremely high density, comprising roughly two-thirds of the projectile's weight. The result is that two-thirds of the total impact energy is concentrated in the small-caliber penetrator: enough energy to lift a thirty-ton weight one-foot delivered instantly to a penny-sized area. Not only is this ammunition capable of penetrating the top and side armor of an MBT, but the depleted uranium ignites on impact, sending a jet of flame into the vehicle. <span id='postcolor'> Excerpt from "Tank-Plinking in the Gulf" article: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Economics of Destruction Essentially these figures show what happens when a poorly trained army with obsolete equipment ventures onto an electronic battlefield dominated by B-52s, Stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, and satellite intelligence. With Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Germany paying tens of billions of dollars in support, Iraq became a shooting gallery for advanced missiles. For example, 4,000 infrared-guided Hellfire missiles costing $40,000 each were fired in the Gulf at a total cost of $160 million. Complaints were voiced when it was found that over 100 Hellfires had been used on trucks and foot soldiers. According to well-informed histories of the war, the Hellfires, TOWs, Mavericks, and other guided missiles destroyed 2,300 Iraqi tanks, or 62 percent of the total of 3,700 tanks eliminated by the Allies. Many of these were sitting empty in trenches when hit, and Brig. Gen. Richard Neal, operations officer for Desert Storm, has said that most were struck from the rear. Another 1,400 Iraqi tanks were destroyed by two types of cannon: the 30 millimeter multibarrel gun in the nose of the A-10 Thunderbolt "tank-killer" aircraft, and the 120-millimeter main gun in the M1A1 Abrams tank. The A-10s fired 940,000 of their 30mm rounds in the Gulf, and 10,000 of the big 120mm rounds were fired by the M1A1 guns. The A-10s may seem to have expended their ammunition rather exorbitantly, but they were designed to do that: the firing rate of these guns is 3,900 rounds per minute, or 65 rounds per second. In the Gulf they were also used to shoot aircraft, bunkers, and small vehicles. A-10 pilots became so bored with their task that they began to speak of "plinking tanks," as if they were tin cans. What makes these details significant is that the 30mm and 120mm rounds fired in the Gulf were made of depleted uranium (DU), a waste product stored in tens of thousands of drums at the plants where uranium has been enriched for warheads and reactor fuel since the Manhattan Project. As with the many high-tech weapons used in the Gulf for the first time, this was the first full battlefield test for DU armaments. Also being battle-tested was the DU armor plate on the Abrams tanks, which sustained only negligible damage from Iraqi guns even when hit at ranges as close as 400 meters. The total U.S. tank damage inflicted by Iraq's armed forces consisted of a few tanks disabled by mines. <span id='postcolor'> fas.org: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 30mm x 173 GAU-8/A ammunition was among the most effective ammunition used in Operation Desert Storm with proven performance against all targets, including tanks, armored and light vehicles<span id='postcolor'> Personally i wouldn´t stress my luck sitting in an M1A2 or any other latest generation tank, when a hail of some dozens of 30mm DU rounds would be knocking on the armor. Tanks , while having strong armor locations, always have respective weak locations, to keep within weight limits and therefore keeping mobility, what is highly essential. They are far from being invincible, read yourself up about the chechnya conflict and what happened to T-80´s over there caused by inferior and obsolete RPG´s.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ June 03 2002,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I get the feeling that majority of you think that MBTs are a piece-of-cake-to-destroy.  They are bloody 60 ton pieces of machinery designed to take a hell of a punishment.  I wish you viewed them with a little more respect.  Even when a round penetrates its armor the tank is not immediately "annihilated" as you often say.  Unless the round hits a vital system, or the crew then the tank will be just fine, having only obtained a hole in its armor.<span id='postcolor'> You don´t have to forget that a tank (at least the ones we got now, not FCS ) are operated by humans. What happens if an AP round successfully penetrates the armor is that extreme high pressure and heat is entering the tank, along with metal fragments, caused by bursting armor located on the inside of the vehicle and projectile leftovers, spraying into the combat compartment or other locations. Even if there is a chance of munition or systems inside the vehicle not immediately being destroyed, the crew located in the area under/behind the hit location is affected very negatively by this, to say it gentle. Make no mistake, we are not talking about some "miniguns" as seen in Blackhawk down or 20mm Vulcans, but the GAU-8/A! Compared to Volkswagen Beatle. more: http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-13.htm The PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary DU penetrator ammunition: Sizes: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They consist of a lightweight aluminum body, cast around a small 'penetrator' of smaller caliber than the shell. (The caliber is about 15mm.) It projects from the blunt body section, and the shell has a thin aluminum 'windscreen' to keep the shape aerodynamic. The penetrator is made of depleted uranium, a byproduct of the enrichment process used to make nuclear fuel. The material has an extremely high density, comprising roughly two-thirds of the projectile's weight. The result is that two-thirds of the total impact energy is concentrated in the small-caliber penetrator: enough energy to lift a thirty-ton weight one-foot delivered instantly to a penny-sized area. Not only is this ammunition capable of penetrating the top and side armor of an MBT, but the depleted uranium ignites on impact, sending a jet of flame into the vehicle. <span id='postcolor'> Excerpt from "Tank-Plinking in the Gulf" article: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Economics of Destruction Essentially these figures show what happens when a poorly trained army with obsolete equipment ventures onto an electronic battlefield dominated by B-52s, Stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, and satellite intelligence. With Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Germany paying tens of billions of dollars in support, Iraq became a shooting gallery for advanced missiles. For example, 4,000 infrared-guided Hellfire missiles costing $40,000 each were fired in the Gulf at a total cost of $160 million. Complaints were voiced when it was found that over 100 Hellfires had been used on trucks and foot soldiers. According to well-informed histories of the war, the Hellfires, TOWs, Mavericks, and other guided missiles destroyed 2,300 Iraqi tanks, or 62 percent of the total of 3,700 tanks eliminated by the Allies. Many of these were sitting empty in trenches when hit, and Brig. Gen. Richard Neal, operations officer for Desert Storm, has said that most were struck from the rear. Another 1,400 Iraqi tanks were destroyed by two types of cannon: the 30 millimeter multibarrel gun in the nose of the A-10 Thunderbolt "tank-killer" aircraft, and the 120-millimeter main gun in the M1A1 Abrams tank. The A-10s fired 940,000 of their 30mm rounds in the Gulf, and 10,000 of the big 120mm rounds were fired by the M1A1 guns. The A-10s may seem to have expended their ammunition rather exorbitantly, but they were designed to do that: the firing rate of these guns is 3,900 rounds per minute, or 65 rounds per second. In the Gulf they were also used to shoot aircraft, bunkers, and small vehicles. A-10 pilots became so bored with their task that they began to speak of "plinking tanks," as if they were tin cans. What makes these details significant is that the 30mm and 120mm rounds fired in the Gulf were made of depleted uranium (DU), a waste product stored in tens of thousands of drums at the plants where uranium has been enriched for warheads and reactor fuel since the Manhattan Project. As with the many high-tech weapons used in the Gulf for the first time, this was the first full battlefield test for DU armaments. Also being battle-tested was the DU armor plate on the Abrams tanks, which sustained only negligible damage from Iraqi guns even when hit at ranges as close as 400 meters. The total U.S. tank damage inflicted by Iraq's armed forces consisted of a few tanks disabled by mines. <span id='postcolor'> fas.org: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 30mm x 173 GAU-8/A ammunition was among the most effective ammunition used in Operation Desert Storm with proven performance against all targets, including tanks, armored and light vehicles<span id='postcolor'> Personally i wouldn´t stress my luck sitting in an M1A2 or any other latest generation tank, when a hail of some dozens of 30mm DU rounds would be knocking on the armor. Tanks , while having strong armor locations, always have respective weak locations, to keep within weight limits and therefore keeping mobility, what is highly essential. They are far from being invincible, read yourself up about the chechnya conflict and what happened to T-80´s over there caused by inferior and obsolete RPG´s.

Yepp, i´ve seen it too sometime back, there was also a video about this, actually i was searching for it to include it with the post. Couldn´t find it anymore. About armor values of russian tanks or general information; this is the best source i could find on the net: http://armor.vif2.ru/ Maybe BIS could take a look to spicen up the armor ratings of vehicles a bit.

Yepp, i´ve seen it too sometime back, there was also a video about this, actually i was searching for it to include it with the post. Couldn´t find it anymore. About armor values of russian tanks or general information; this is the best source i could find on the net: http://armor.vif2.ru/ Maybe BIS could take a look to spicen up the armor ratings of vehicles a bit.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ June 02 2002,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 30mm Vulcan mounted on the A-10 Thunderbolt will not, I repeat WILL NOT penetrate the armor of a battle tank.  Just so you know, Tank armor is thicker than 69mm at any part of its hull/turret.<span id='postcolor'> Of course it will, as a tanks armor rating isn´t consistent, did you take into account that the upper hemisphere of the ground target gets also hit on an strafing runs? Ever heard of cluster ammunition like the MK20 Rockeye? if you would put the penetration value of a single shaped charge warhead submunition against the front turret HEAT RHA rating of an T-80, it looks pathetic, but it´s unlikley that this is the area where the charge hits, it´s top attack munition and it will penetrate the top armor regardless. You have to know that MBT´s have only a minimum protection to the rear, top and hull sides, also on exposed parts like treads, wheels, suspension. Rear armor of modern russian MBT´s like the T-90 is about 40mm Rolled steel. The plain side hull of an T-90 offers about 60mm, lower side hull around the wheels only 20mm protection. Top armor should be somewhere around 30mm-60mm. The GAU-8/A has a high rate of fire, the sheer amount and concentration of bullets put down will cause structural damage even to the hardest armored parts stressing and weakening it, so follow up hits could eventually overcome even those areas, as the GAU-8/A is pretty accurate for a gatling cannon; 5mil, 80 percent, meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired at 1,800m will hit within an area of 6.1m radius. Distance to target when firing the cannon is considerably less, so you can figure. This is an exerpt from the airforce museum: " The contracted specifications directed the gun be capable of destroying a wide variety of targets expected to be encountered during a Close Air Support mission: light, medium and heavy tanks, amored personnel carriers, and fixed or mobile artillery. The specifications also called for the gun to be capable of destroying hardened targets like bunkers and equipment within revetments. "

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ June 02 2002,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The 30mm Vulcan mounted on the A-10 Thunderbolt will not, I repeat WILL NOT penetrate the armor of a battle tank.  Just so you know, Tank armor is thicker than 69mm at any part of its hull/turret.<span id='postcolor'> Of course it will, as a tanks armor rating isn´t consistent, did you take into account that the upper hemisphere of the ground target gets also hit on an strafing runs? Ever heard of cluster ammunition like the MK20 Rockeye? if you would put the penetration value of a single shaped charge warhead submunition against the front turret HEAT RHA rating of an T-80, it looks pathetic, but it´s unlikley that this is the area where the charge hits, it´s top attack munition and it will penetrate the top armor regardless. You have to know that MBT´s have only a minimum protection to the rear, top and hull sides, also on exposed parts like treads, wheels, suspension. Rear armor of modern russian MBT´s like the T-90 is about 40mm Rolled steel. The plain side hull of an T-90 offers about 60mm, lower side hull around the wheels only 20mm protection. Top armor should be somewhere around 30mm-60mm. The GAU-8/A has a high rate of fire, the sheer amount and concentration of bullets put down will cause structural damage even to the hardest armored parts stressing and weakening it, so follow up hits could eventually overcome even those areas, as the GAU-8/A is pretty accurate for a gatling cannon; 5mil, 80 percent, meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired at 1,800m will hit within an area of 6.1m radius. Distance to target when firing the cannon is considerably less, so you can figure. This is an exerpt from the airforce museum: " The contracted specifications directed the gun be capable of destroying a wide variety of targets expected to be encountered during a Close Air Support mission: light, medium and heavy tanks, amored personnel carriers, and fixed or mobile artillery. The specifications also called for the gun to be capable of destroying hardened targets like bunkers and equipment within revetments. "

Posted on Feb. 11 2002,16:59.... a shame the thread didn´t end there or got locked, talking about digging the dead out of their graves. . . . . . . . . BTW, who is interested in the U.S. Army´s future plans regarding FCS and transformation, should watch this video: : Around the Army in 3000 Seconds: Technology and Innovation for Transformation http://www.amchistory.army.mil/video/video.html

When you drink lots of alcohol your body gets drained of minerals and vitamins in addition to becoming slightly dehydrated, what makes you feel bad the other day. Drink lots of mineral water, about 1-2 bottles after you woke up and have a normal breakfast. Whenever you still have the consciousness to open and drink a bottle of mineral water before you go to bed, do it, you will feel better when you wake up. BTW; avoid coffee, it only dehydrates your body even more and doesn´t help.

Nice landscape, that sea pic make me want to go out for a swim, to bad the only natural watercourses where i live is the Rhein river or, as some call it the waste dump (not very recommended for swimming, have a scar on the lower leg that reminds me of that) and some small lakes.

All the recruiting- and deeper psycholgical purposes the U.S. Army has by distributing this software aside, the game itself (the shooter) could indeed turn out to be a game more than worth playing, not only because it comes for free. As far as i was able to collect some info regarding the gameengine, it features: - the latest unreal engine (eventually the same that is used in R6:Raven Shield) - Around 20 singleplayer missions - Wind and gravity affecting the trajectory - Sophisticated communications and leading by handsignals - nice animations (watch the trailer video) - ability to climb walls, or fall down from them injuring yourself - parachute drops - multiplayer human vs. human (Army vs OPFOR) for 32 players based on a skill system devided into training classes, so newbies are playing together with newbies, while advanced classes only play together with other cracks. - Modularity of the game. It seems addons are based on the MOS system, and new ones will be available for download some time after the release, the MOS the game is starting with is 11 (Infantry). This *could* mean that if a new MOS is introduced, some vehicles in form of addons could be available to play around with- I´m counting here on the educational logic, the intend of the Army to give an (of course) "perverted" insight into the rather complex job diversity within an Army; Tanker, Pilot etc. No word on the viewdistance yet, but if they want it to be somewhat near to believable, it should be higher than to expect from a normal shooter, especially since they boasted about detail in building after the qualification shootings. Edit: Viewdistance looks sufficent for infantry.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordZach @ May 23 2002,21:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you mean you don't find the constant shouting of "WHERE ARE YOU" when you are clearly in their field of vision sexy? i wish their mouths would move when they said that, so i could put a bullet in it.  all the AI squad is really good for <span id='postcolor'> that´s exactly what i meant, it´s horrible, i almost get haunted by that. Maybe i should strap on some horns and a rotating flashlight onto my helmet in addition to a large cowbell around my neck, so AI don´t loose track of me. Also inside the vehicle it´s horrible, especially if you have to wait with your fire command till the AI has finished croaking its dubious reports.

I turn music very low volume, not because i wouldn´t like it, but it is distracting for me if it kicks in at full loudness, making it almost impossible to hear the more important sound effects. The speech/voice volume i turned also down in loudness, because it is very nerving.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LordZach @ May 23 2002,20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ May 23 2002,10:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The army is for sure getting the kind of folks it deserves with a recruiting campaign like this. <span id='postcolor'> it's really a secret campaign to fight obesity, all these fat computer nerds think "wow i'll go join the army!" then they get beat into shape <span id='postcolor'> Should be a bit tougher to get the psychological malaligned back on track of reality and relativate some things, whose going to justify the fall-through quota and costs that go with it?

Over the last couple of weeks i found the W32.Klez.gen@mm i-net worm Virus in attachments forwarded to my e-mail address. The problem with this virus is that it is self sending, on an infected machine it will randomly send itself to contacts stored in the e-mail addressbook, so there must not necessary be some hacker behind it, trying to cause harm specifically to you. In fact most people don´t even know that they are sending viruses unintentionally everytime they go online, and wonder themselves why they get a writing from their ISP to stop the "illegal" activities they are doing. You are especially prone to receiving viruses, if many people have stored you in their contact lists. I can only urge everyone to use Antivirus software with e-mail protection and current virus definitions, then you are usually on the secure side. If you are getting sick of finding viruses from the same address on a regular basis in your mails, return the mail to the sender with a hint that his machine is infected with a virus. If no response is received and he´s continuing to send viruses, block his e-mail address and inform his SP.

The army is for sure getting the kind of folks it deserves with a recruiting campaign like this.

Yepp, the AI seems to have an increased viewdistance and/or field of view (to counterbalance the upcoming custom viewdistance feature?), and are more precise with their weapons. Try the Bomberman mission, as soon as the mission starts you are being shot at immediately by an russian officer some 300 or 400m away (he usually scores a hit on you), if you manage to kill him, the T-80 driving nearby will shoot at you, if you should survive even that, the column you are supposed to destroy will start to hunt you down (BMP and Shilka went after me). It´s almost tougher than to play against a human opponent with the new AI, i suppose if i was to complete the OFP:Resistance campaign with this AI setup it would take me half an eternity and alot of save game points to play through the missions successfully

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ May 21 2002,04:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well the chinook can reach 600 so i think they are just trying to keep them competitive<span id='postcolor'> They fixed the CH-47´s speed with 1.46, it only goes about 320 km/h max level speed now. However it´s still submergeable though, as all helicopters.

With focusing primary on new playable units with oxygen, one (underestimated) part seems to get almost no attention, like static objects, both, military and civil. They should be easier to model than vehicles, even for those without years of modelling experience, and do add too to the game, especially to overall realism and immersion. 2 things coming in mind: Power Generators This is a civil version of an similar military model we use for operating our vehicle once in position, it supplies all the Radios, Lamps, computer, etc. with electricity, delivering 0,75 KVA/ 220 Volt for the model we use. Power generators come in many sizes and performance ratings, we operate models weighting as little as 35kg with size of 39 x 30 x 37 cm, 75kg (on M577 TOC) size:68 x 39 x 50cm to models that can only be transported and operated on trailers because of their sheer size and weight. Usually it makes a hell lot of noise (gasoline/ 2 stroke engine) sounding like a moped on high rpm idling cycle, but is necessary if the vehicle is operating for a sustained amount of time in an assigned area. Of course we can run on vehicle batterys for a short period, but they aren´t suited for longer duration as they would need constantly to be charged, and to charge them you need either an external power generator unit or the vehicle motor itself. Basically wherever there is an HQ located in the field, power generators are operated. If you want a realistic scenario with an forward/ field HQ, static Anti Air batteries or Radars etc involved, power generators shouldn´t be missing. Telescopic Antenna mast systems: (Directional Antenna mast) (VHF Antenna mast) (a retracted mast) There are many different Antennas and masts, VHF, UHF, HF, Satcom systems. There are also several ways how an Antenna with mast is operated; i.e. attached directly to an vehicle (smaller, lighter masts), mounted on a trailer (usually for large, heavy masts), or deployed externally (manportable smaller masts). With small i discribe masts of ca. 6m in lenght when fully extracted, large masts can be significantly more than 20m. On top of a mast are usually the antennas and their carrier mounted, different systems=different looks, from classical antenna sticks (VHF i.e.), to dishes (Satcom i.e.), grilles (UHF i.e.) many forms are available. Such antennas are usually found on Tactical operation center units (HQ´s). In Flashpoint these would make some excellent mission objectives adding largely to mission realism and athmosphere, as a primary object in any conflict is to disrupt enemy command control and communications (C3).

Nice model, looking pretty realistic.

An 5to truck with cabin could serve this purpose, would be more immersing and realistic than just to stand near a Hawk launcher (ouch) aiming it like an howitzer or something. God, i wish we had functional radar screens instead of the arcade action display, that could be implemented into the interior of an vehicle.

Indeed very nice model of the HAWK firing unit, excellent job! How about some sections like acquisition and firecontrol to accompany it, then you´d have a complete HAWK battery. AN/TPS-59 Long Range Surveillance Radar " The AN/TPS-59 Radar Set is a Marine Air Command & Control System which serves as the primary sensor for the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF), providing air target information and raw video to the Tactical Air Operations Module (TAOM). It can also be forward-deployed as a stand-alone remote sensor and air traffic controller. The improved radar will detect theater ballistic missiles out to 400 nautical miles and up to 500,000 feet in altitude. These improvements will give the radar the sort of surveillance and tracking ability needed for theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD). The first units were equipped with upgraded TPS-59s in FY98. " Air Defense Communications Platform (ADCP) "The Air Defense Communications Platform, an entirely new addition to the HAWK system, will link the TPS-59 to the HAWK battery and will also transmit formatted data to other theater sensors. This will allow the HAWK to communicate with other TBMD systems through the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System. These links will allow the air defense commander to cue HAWK with other missile defense systems and integrate the HAWK into the theater missile defense architecture. The ADCP is fully developed, and began production in FY97. " This is the modern and current setup for the upraged HAWK system. In 1985 the setup was different from that.

If you choose "german" from the OFP preferences setup, then you won´t have "Directplay" or "Sockets" displayed in the MP setup screen, instead the word "german" is shown for both options.

From a realistical standpoint you are absolutely right, but we also have to see the environment Flashpoint is taking place in and the way it is focused on ground based combat. Even with the new Resistance coming up, enabling us to set viewdistances of up to 5000m on the snap via a slider, OFP  won´t get an A/C simulation. With 5000m viewdistance you overlook half of the new island, and it´s just to little playing area for planes with an immense destructive arsenal. I can only appeal to everyone that wants to fly around and blow up stuff the realistic way, get a dedicated flightsim, like the upcoming Lock On: Modern Air Combat, it´s going to be huge and delivers everything for our fixed wing aircraft  needs, everything a ground focused game can´t. Tools of the trade. Some stuff to blow up Ground detail isn´t bad either for a flightsim Here is the url: http://www.lo-mac.com Check out the video: http://www.lo-mac.com/movies.php

Just noticed, this extends also to a few other sections, so english is the only fully supported language in this beta release i assume.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Verifying Operation Flashpoint, version 1.46... Warning: No CRC information about version 1.46. Operation Flashpoint: Updating version 1.46 to version 1.55... Operation Flashpoint patch 1.55 has been applied successfully <span id='postcolor'> This message window is normal, displayed over here in exactly the same manner, no problems. Your green screen however is not normal... I even installed the multi test while having my soundmod .cpp activated with 1.46, no problems either, i assume because the MP test patch comes with it´s own directory and appropiate config.bin. I´ve tested under Win98SE and WindowsXP, so far this is really a huge improvement over any previous version, it runs fast, almost lagfree (7 people on DSL host 128up/768down) and appears to have improvements that extend beyond MP, AI soldiers are know kneeling, physics seems to be improved and even some graphics (ground) appear different, although i´m not 100% sure about this as i was playing with anisotropic settings in rivatuner.  One thing i did notice however is a non MP related thing, the viewdistance slider seems to be not working correctly- but this test is about MP right.