WKK Gimbal

OFP flying is only arcadish in the simplicity of the controls, like the radar or that you can start the machines with one click. The *feeling* of flying is spot on, in my oppinion. Many hightech flight sims feels more fake than OFP, because the feeling isn't there. I've flown a Robinson R22 in real life and it acts EXACTLY like the OH-58 in OFP. It's a pure gem!

Myth was sweet. Spend billions of hours on that silly game.

hmmm. I think joystick works excellent in 1.42, except for the stupid throttle on choppers issue With the mouse I can't make rolls or loops. Gotta have that!

I never play games in less than 1600x1200x32 I have a 21' monitor and smaller resolution looks absolutely awful on it. Or maybe it's just me who are allergic to aliasing. I've tried OFP in smaller rez, but framerate is the same. OFP seems to be drawing more on CPU for AI and stuff, than graphics.

Heheh ... I remember when I first played the OFP demo. I found the physics absolutely awful. But hey, they said the game was only 80 percent done, so I hoped the last 20 percent was in the physics department I hope OFP2 will have physics that can match the FPS standard. Ability to FALL down a steep slope and die. Objects that can be pushed, rolled or tipped over. Proper pathfinding and movement in houses. As I said, like in any other FPS game

Sorry to nitpick right back at ya! Helicopters DO have throttle. I know this as I've flown the real thing myself. The collective handle is a combination of two controls. The collective (pull handle) setting the angle of the blades, as well as the THROTTLE (twist handle) to control the RPM of the engine(s). So yes, a helicopter does have throttle. The throttle has little use during actual flight though, and should definately be omitted in OFP, as it doesn't work right at all. Besides, if it allows me to fly at 60.000 meters, it's lamer than lame. Try it out! Just having the "UP" and "DOWN" keys represent the collective, should be more than good enough in OFP. Having them mapped onto the joystick simply rocks.

general aviation was quite improved in 1.40 already, including choppers and enemy jetpilots actually shooting at you in dogfights.

Yeah, Red Hammer had more of those "Damned! I've erased the entire map!" -experiences. That's why it sucked a bit. 1985 is much more realistic, though it does have just a few of those experiences too.

I think FADE is the most idiotic piracy protection ever. If I have some performance issues with OFP, I instantly think "oh-my-god, maybe something has activated FADE?" It makes legal owners paranoid, not just pirates. It would be better with a more visible protection system, that will display "PIRATE" in 500-point font across your screen and close down the game, than this sneaky-business FADE protection that makes everyone who tinkers with addons and missions into semi-paranoids. Suma explains that FADE can affect accuracy of weapons. So all legal owners who happens to suck at aiming think they got FADE.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol gimbal... stop playing with setpos command.... LOL<span id='postcolor'> That's not setpos!! It's real! All I did was push the throttle all the way up and sit and watch for a couple of minutes, while the chopper kept going up and up and up. It could have gone further than this, but I felt it was pointless to watch. But hey ... if I'm the only one who can fly at 60.000 meters, it should give a nice edge in MP, heheh.

hmmm ... in "Hind Attack" I could steal a Hind and waste the about 10 Shilkas on the island without being shot.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The LAW's, RPG's, Carl Gustav's and AT-4's are all similar to their counterparts on the other side. The LAW and RPG even have the same model for the rocket.<span id='postcolor'> It's the same with rifles. All AK's and M16 are only different in firemodes and looks. Everything else is the same. Actually, this seems like something one would do for a game intended mainly for multiplayer. Or it could be lazyness. Or it could be to avoid Americans complaining that the Russian weapons where superior.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Dangus @ Jan. 20 2002,19:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Spec Ops guys could probably do all of the above, they are very select troops who are capable of a huge range of things.<span id='postcolor'> I seriously doubt that. Spec Ops spend so much time training for special operations (duh), that they would have no time to learn the skills of flying a gunship. It's not the same as driving a car, ya know - or even the same as flying a civi helicopter. The controls are far more advanced, not to mention the radar and weapons systems. That takes years upon years to master, and very regular training to keep the skills sharp. Furthermore, it costs millions to pay for the training. It's not for their blue eyes pilots are rescued behind enemy lines.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kasatka @ Jan. 20 2002,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">MBT Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle) Â The newest Russian main battle tank. A mobility test-bed of a 21th century tank and is a result of radical upgrading of the T-80U MBT. The selection of the T-80U as a base for development of the 5th generation MBT derives from the fact that it is rightfully considered as the best MBT in the world which suc-cessfully combines all the basic per-formance characteristics: speed, maneuverability, fire power and protec-tion system. The Chiorny Oriol has the same overall dimensions as the T-80U does, nevertheless it has a lower silhouette which makes it less distinctive on the terrain. The experts believe that in terms of combination of the basic charac-teristics such as maneuverability, fire power, armour piercing capability and protection this MBT will surpass the Western MBTs such as M1A2 Abrams, Leclerk and Leopard-2 by a factor of 1.5-1.7. <span id='postcolor'> Cool tank .... ... so .. Kasatka .... when are you gonna stop using my avatar and find your own?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kasatka @ Jan. 20 2002,20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">MBT Chiorny Oriol (Black Eagle) Â The newest Russian main battle tank. A mobility test-bed of a 21th century tank and is a result of radical upgrading of the T-80U MBT. The selection of the T-80U as a base for development of the 5th generation MBT derives from the fact that it is rightfully considered as the best MBT in the world which suc-cessfully combines all the basic per-formance characteristics: speed, maneuverability, fire power and protec-tion system. The Chiorny Oriol has the same overall dimensions as the T-80U does, nevertheless it has a lower silhouette which makes it less distinctive on the terrain. The experts believe that in terms of combination of the basic charac-teristics such as maneuverability, fire power, armour piercing capability and protection this MBT will surpass the Western MBTs such as M1A2 Abrams, Leclerk and Leopard-2 by a factor of 1.5-1.7. <span id='postcolor'> Cool tank .... ... so .. Kasatka .... when are you gonna stop using my avatar and find your own?

The Cobra has sugar-glass on the cockpit. I once shot down a Cobra with a single M16 bullet. No need to say I hit the pilot right in the forehead. The gunner was so surprised he forgot to bail out, lol.

A small update ... the 5-ton truck was not used by U.S army before '89, though used in the 1985 campaign. So why complain about the G36? The 1990 timeframe fits more and more.

Damage ... there's something disturbingly wrong with the way your OFP displays shadows, you know? It looks like X-ray! BTW, there IS a model for the tank shells too.

The ZSU's radar equipment is extremely advanced and often linked to AVACs and other equipment. It should have no problem of knowing your exact location behind a forrest The can only shoot through forrests if there's a line of sight - try hopping into one and shoot at the trees. The collision detection works for every single trunk. What you experience may be some bullets that makes their way past the trunks. Flying into an area infested with ZSUs should be suicide. Else there's no need to have them in the game. If they can take down jets, choppers should be sitting ducks. If ZSUs where less dangerous, there would be no need for saboteurs. Try the mission Hind Attack from 1985. If you steal one of the Hinds, it's actually possible to take down the 10 or so SZUs on the map. Hey, they are actually too easy. In real life that would mean certain death.

Well my intentions was somewhat satirical, as these and many other bugs are so old and well-known that they haunt me in my dreams. It is ruining an otherwise god-like gaming experience. I no-longer expect anything to actually be fixed when downloading a patch ... all I see is a higher version-number and maybe some addons. Addons are great, it's not that. Everything BIS comes up with is godlike. But they should atleast finish what is started, instead of making something new, like addons. Though I'm sorry about the marker-thingy. I was simply too stupid to realise how amazingly it's been designed, with the channels.

Keys to a good missions are the same as to a good movie experience, in my book. 1. Involvement. You gotta se the point in your mission and feel that it's a goal worth achieving, compared to what you may have to go through to achieve it. A good example: Red Dawn. Damned íf I would let that bastard to Guba ever get away! My first thought: If that evil geezer is ever gonna get to his boat, it'll be over my dead body! It's like letting Osama run away - no chance! A bad example: Red Hammer, the mission where you have to race like a madman to free the resistance leader. My first thought: You don't risk the lives of three soldiers to potentially save one. BAD MATH! It's war. War has casualties. But you attempt to save more lives than you lose. ------------------------- 2: Realism. Very important! Inserting a single Black Op to take out a huge and very important target is not realism. Black Op's perform small sabotage tasks behind enemy lines, and preferably get out without anyone ever knowing he was there - i.e. avoiding all combat. A worse example: "Breifing: Ride your tank to the enemy base, assassinate the general, steal the Hind and then blow up the island." Well, who in the army are trained for both tanks, helicopters, sniping and covert ops? These are all very specialized skills. If you are a tank gunner, you don't know the slightest thing about starting up a chopper (which actually is a rather long procedure), and even less about engaging a target with it. Don't ever make it possible for the player to get into a situation where he can deal with all enemies on the island. When you're a crawling Black Op, a T80 is damned scary! When you're a chopper pilot, Shilkas are the nightmare! If the player ever get's above all threats, the mission loses realism and becomes boring. 'Godmode' simply sucks. ------------------------------ 3: Player choices: Don't dictate everything the player must do. Give him some free room to choose what path to go and what combat mode he want to use ... unless he's a grunt. Then you want a CO that is well scripted, and don't stop in the middle of the mission. Not even once in a 1000 replays! Don't take the power away from the player by too many boring cutscenes. Keep them short and dramatic. This is a game, not a Polish movie! ------------------------------- 4: Element of surpise: Let something unexpected happen. Look at the 1985 campaign. Half the missions end up being way off plan, because the enemy had a card up his sleeve. That is very important. If the briefing gives the entire mission away, it feels kinda hollow to play it. ------------------------------- 5: Bug free: Playtest your mission 500 times if necessary. Or keep it simple. I'd rather play a simple mission with zero scripts, than a huge mission with fancy scripts and lots of bugs. Or a framerate of 2 FPS because the designer put in 300 extra houses that didn't add anything to the gameplay. Keeping within these simple guidelines should be a help to make a good mission. If in doubt, look at BIS' 1985 missions, for how they are structured and balanced. They are the best missions ever made for this game ... still.

In OFP, the AK74, AK74SU, AK47, AK47CZ and M16 all have EXACTLY the same precision and reloadtime, when fired in single mode. I checked the config. So it's all about which one that matches your clothes best

I can see the SVD crosshair just fine. Have you tried reinstalling stuff?

I made a test, firing both weapons at 45 degrees pitch. The M16 grenadelauncher has a maxrange of approximately 2 minor grid squares (around 250 meters). The M16 mortar has a maxrange of approximately 3 minor grid squares (around 375 meters). The Mortar also has a much larger damage radius. If applied well, it can take out a whole squad.

I just forget all about what year it's "supposed" to be. Actually, the crumble of USSR, the rogue general and the SCUD situation seems more like a possible 1990 scenario.