suchey

I say tag it...you came up with the script...its only right that if others use it that your tag appears. Just my oppinion.

I would LOVE to see a Russian light transport chopper...I dont know anything about Russian hardware so I cant give any examples of what would be a good choice, but something light and fast like the 'LittleBirds' that NATO has. I hate having to disarm big ass Russian helecopters when I want to use Russian air transport.

...this may be a little off target from the current direction of the pilot oxygen mask thing, but just wondering if there is any new info on the T-90 updates? I cant wait to get my hands on those!

Hey fellas...theres lots of talented folks here and I wanted to put this forward in case anyone was looking for some mission editing direction. We at www.digitalgrenade.com have an addon pack that we use on our dedicated server. It consists of a variety of different items geared toward adversarial play. If anyone is interested in making a player vs. player missions using these addons please feel send them our way. We will be sure to get them up on our server as well as offer them for download at our site. Just figured Id throw this out there! Thanks for listening

Earl and I are working on a Modern USMC pack...I am working on the units which will be comprised of USMC wearing their soon to be adopted MARPAT camo and Earl is working on small arms for them including the M16a4 and lots of other new goodies. The forum thread is located here: USMC MARPAT forum thread and you can also check out our web sites (linked below)

I would like to make a request to the modeling and addon making community for a man portable field satellite uplink. I have scripting for missions in which one of these items would be most excellent . I have included a couple link to get ideas on how something like this would look...basically Im looking for something that is man portable/suitcase deployable...you've all seen these, Im sure, in some movie or website somewhere...here are a couple links: http://www.army-technology.com/contrac....31.html http://www.specwargear.com/communication.html Obviously it doesnt have to be exactly like this...but it will give you a general idea. I think this would probably be relatively simple to create and would get ALOT of use by mission editors. As an additional idea...it would be great if the model was animated (although unnecessary)...in that the dish folded out and stuff. Just some ideas. Hopefully someone will pick up the ball and run with it! I already have some good scripting which would use this extensively.

NICE!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 22 2003,16:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are there any pics of these in Iraq. Everywhere I look in Iraq, I see BAS BAS BAS!<span id='postcolor'> MARPAT isnt in full dristribution yet...you probably wont see US Marines wearing it in its full form for a while.

great work!

all these months so they could change the name on the file from Beta to Final ?

There have been alot of questions in regard to the USMC using the M4...the M16A2, or the M16A4...I found this in "Stars and Stripes" and it may help to answer some questions folks have in regard to the weapon and how the USMC will be using it... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Wednesday, October 23, 2002 Marines choose M-16A4 as infantry rifle By Mark Oliva, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Thursday, October 24, 2002 The Marine Corps chose a new infantry rifle, and it’s not the short assault rifle with which the Army equipped soldiers in the Afghan campaigns. Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., announced last week it would buy 65,463 of the M-16A4 service rifles for infantry Marines between now and 2007. The new rifle resembles the M-16A2 service rifle in use now but allows for add-on parts as emerging technology warrants. After head-to-head comparison tests, the Marines rejected the M-4, the shorter rifle the Army issued to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. “The ground board chose the M-16A4 over the M-4 because it had a lesser frequency of malfunctions,†said Marine Corps officials from Headquarters Marine Corps in a prepared statement. “The initial units will be fielded to Ground Combat Elements.†The M-4 received sharp criticism from soldiers who fought the Taliban in Afghanistan earlier this year in Operation Anaconda and Mountain Lion. Some soldiers complained bullets used in the rifle lacked stopping power, according to a survey Army officials conducted. They also noted that heat shields in the hand guards often rattled, prompting soldiers to remove them, only to burn their hands from overheating hand guards. Marine support units will continue to use the M-16A2 rifles. The old rifles were nearing the end of their life cycles and needed replacement, according to the Marine Corps statement. But Corps officials also wanted to be able to integrate attachments Marines could need for different missions, such as flashlights, laser sights and a rail system for interchangeable sights and scopes. In a head-to-head performance comparison between the M-16A4 and the M-4, a shorter carbine version with a collapsible stock, Marine officials found few similarities. “Both weapons have flat-top receivers with the 1913 Military Standard rails for mounting optics, as well as forward rail hand guards,†said Marine Capt. John Douglas, project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command. The new rifle can handle standard rifle sights plus night vision options and scopes. The rifle also can be fitted with a vertical forward handgrip. But that’s where comparisons end. The M-4 is 10 inches shorter and one pound lighter than the current M-16A2. Marine officials found some deficiencies in the M-4. In tests and surveys conducted last July at Camp Lejeune, N.C., most Marines preferred the M-4 over the longer M-16A4 for most combat situations, but the M-4 had more malfunctions, they said. The comparisons were based on Infantry Training Standards and reviewed by Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity. “Though the number was very low for each weapon, the M-4 was found to have three times the number of weapons malfunctions as the M-16A4,†the statement read. There was no significant difference in accuracy between the two rifles. Several Marine units already use the M-4, including Force Reconnaissance platoons, Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security teams and Military Police Special Response teams. Those units will continue to use the M-4, and the Marines still may purchase more in the future after corrections are made to reduce malfunctions, said the Marine Corps statement. <span id='postcolor'>

maybe you could check for surviving crew before switching the model...if there was someone still alive the model would just use the default damage "crinkle" model...but if everyone was dead it switches to the new "full damage" model. Just a thought.

I think that the MARPAT BDUs are supposed to be fully adopted by October of this year.

funny you should say that...

Thanks for the input pzvg...Im glad folks like them so far. I still have a good deal of work to do on them, but I changed the screenshot to the units which are closest to complete. (viewable on the first post of this thread or at www.digitalgrenade.com ) ...pictured from left to right: sniper, rifleman (m203), standard rifleman (squatting), Force Recon w/watch cap, Force Recon assault. More to come!

It is currently on hold while I finish the MARPAT Marines...its not a dead project, just waiting for a bit.

Vixer...I cant wait to deploy Marines from that!

WOW! That is some qaulity work. I cant wait to take that puppy for a spin!

As I understand it, many items such as molle packs, pouches, helmet covers, body armor, etc. will remain woodland for a while in the USMC...eventually they will be moving EVERYTHING to the MARPAT cammo, but accessories will not be fully converted over as quickly as the main utility uniforms. Boonie hats and patrol caps will be MARPAT in the pack as those items will go full release with the new BDUs. In game,the woodland helmet helps to keep the standard NATO look for the unit as well, which will help alot in multiplay as many players differentiate enemy and friendly units by thier helmets. So there is a real life reason as well as a gameplay reason which works out well. The Molle Packs, and accessorie items will be woodland across the board on units, aside from the bonnies and patrol caps as mentioned above.

Updated shot of the sniper...I changed the ghille colors quite a bit to match the OFP environment more readily as well as adding vegitation to the suit. A longer coat which laps over the pants was also built in. Time to visit the LODs and work on some blood textures.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @ Mar. 04 2003,02:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Should have never started all that "Axis of Evil" talk. Is it my faulty memory, or didn't Bush publically say that NK was in need of a regime change? What is Kim Jong Il going to do after hearing that and seeing what is going on in Iraq? Send him his petty food aid and leave him alone.<span id='postcolor'> I see your point...but the world can also not be bullied into providing aid...what happens when he decides he needs 50 billion dollars to stabalize his countries economy...or he needs something else...it sets a pattern of bowing to military threat. Give us money or we blow stuff up...give us this, give us that or we blow stuff up. Where does it end? I doubt that this would all simply blow over if food aid was fully restored.

Its too bad there are no real values avaiable for reference...perhaps a thread could be started in order to determine what good values across a variety of addon types should be. I know Ive seen this question countless times in the forums, but never have seen a good solid answer. It would be nice to gain some sort of community standard in regard to face count for humans, weapons, vehicles, etc etc which have been used and proven to work well in game.

for simplicity sake the weapons and soldiers will most likely be in seperate PBOs but the pack will be released as one package containing 2 pbos.

I dont want to dredge up some sort of debate on this, but I know that the yellow target boxes assignable by the officer have been a hot topic for squads/leagues and multiplayer play. I am also aware that there is a work around of sorts that is reported to work, but what I would like to know is if BIS has any plans to incorporate an option to disable these when the next patch arrives? Suma responded to some posts regarding their removal and a workaround method for mission makers to get rid of them, but I was hopeing that this will be fixed by the next patch. It would be nice to have the option to disable this on servers if you want to have a game utilizing stealth and concealment. Any word on this?