Stag

It's a heinkel 117 "Grief," and a pretty good design aside from the fact that the coupled engines had a tendency to catch fire. Even so, the design may have seen service soon enough to be a significant weapon, if a cerain crazy paperhanger hadn't decided that all new designs had to be capable of dive bombing. BTW, are you sure that's a Typhoon back there? Typhoon's cannon were visible on the leading edge of the wings, Tempests were fully concealed. Without putting the two side by side I'd say Tempest, regardless of what the image was labelled. Not making an issue of it, just an observation

Looks like the deer model thats stuck on some of the fountains. Fair enough, but were's the animation to go with it?

It's the Telemark raid that destroyed the heavy water plant. The country was Norway, and the raid was conducted by Norwegian Resistance supported by Britain.

Beautiful work, and fills a real gap in the inventory too.

Excellent piece of work!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Nov. 01 2002,17:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Nov. 02 2002,13:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Nov. 01 2002,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the problem is it would look strange if only 4 people get on, they would be squashed up, i think also as bas doesnt have the ability to edit animations yet we had to do the best we could, the benches were already modified from the real thing to fit the animations, i just dont think another person per bench would work and look good<span id='postcolor'> Bummer. Will the configs be upgraded when new techniques are developed? Thanks for the polite response BTW.<span id='postcolor'> it depends, i think after all the troubles so far stt is probably on the verge of screaming and taking a baseball bat to the lb's it just depends on whether its absolutely needed, and whether the team is busy when the new techniques are developed<span id='postcolor'> Hmm. didn't realise that it it was so controversial. As far as the flight models go, any judgement is purely arbitrary. Who here has actually flown a Littlebird in combat? Apparrently, under some conditions, other littlebird flight models are more nimble. Is this because these models are more accurate, or because their agility has been overmodelled? Personally, I've got no gripes with the way they fly. Hell, if you get the conditions right, you can roll them. On the passenger issue: I know that BAS is a very competant team, and would not do things the way they did without a reason. I was just curious to know why it was done the way it was. Obviously this doesn't sit well with some people who would quite cheerfully burn me at the stake for herasy Finally, I wouldn't mind joining the line volunteering to be beta testers for your team. If you want somebody who's head disappears up BAS's collective ass every time they come to a sudden halt, I don't qualify. If you want my honest opinion of your work, I'd be more than happy to give it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Nov. 01 2002,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the problem is it would look strange if only 4 people get on, they would be squashed up, i think also as bas doesnt have the ability to edit animations yet we had to do the best we could, the benches were already modified from the real thing to fit the animations, i just dont think another person per bench would work and look good<span id='postcolor'> Bummer. Will the configs be upgraded when new techniques are developed? Thanks for the polite response BTW.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 01 2002,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its 4 people. god stop arguing you guys are never happy are you?<span id='postcolor'> I am very happy with the gunships. There's actually room for two in the back, when SOP is not to carry passengers. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 01 2002,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Â you get the best addon ever for ofp, the most realistic in ALL aspects--especially carrying capacity<span id='postcolor'>Â Um, No it's not, it's actualy 6, according to the information which is in BAS's own readme. STANDARD OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE says only carry 4, but that's common sense. Three littlebirds go in to retrieve an 8 man team. One gets shot down. Two can still perform the mission, and still have a chance of extracting everyone safely. There is physically enough space to hold 8 on each aircraft, but is there enough surplus power? 8 places may be extreme, but it is proven with documentary evidence to be able to carry 6. why put an artificial limit on its capabilites? This is discussion, not whining. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 01 2002,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Â i bet you guys would tell the CO of the 160th himself that "umm sir those little birds are wrong. they should be like this....[insert complaint here]" Â just accept them as they are. Â admit that you dont know everything you thought you did. Â sure they CAN carry six people...<span id='postcolor'> I wouldn't speak to the CO of the 160th SOAR, I would listen. When he'd finished speaking, I wouild ask any remaining questions I had. One thing I'm sure he'd be happy to discuss is what his arecraft are capable of in extreme circumtances, if the information wasn't actually classifed. There is a world of difference between what is done and what can be done with any machine. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 01 2002,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Â and a boeing 747 CAN carry bombs. <span id='postcolor'> But you can't use it as a bomber, not without some serious modifications. It can also carry ice cream, but that doesn't make it an ice cream van. An ice cream van however, only has two seats, but I bet if you wanted, you could get maybe up to twenty people in it. Check the Guiness Book of Records for the number of people that can be put into a Mini; I think you'll find it's considerably more than 4. Â </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 01 2002,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> but that doesnt mean you have to do it.<span id='postcolor'> I agree. But in this case BAS appears to be putting an artificial limit on is capabilities. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 01 2002,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Â you want a little bird with 6 seats, different handling, and other stuff? Â have at it. make your own.<span id='postcolor'> Could be done, but then the issues start to get very complicated. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (NavyEEL @ Nov. 01 2002,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Â i can safely say that your little birds are about as accurate as they can get within the limitations of ofp.<span id='postcolor'> That's what is being debated. If SOP is going to be set in stone, why the two places in the back of the AH6? As I said, BAS' own readme says six on the planks of the MH6. It may not be desireable operationally, but it is apparently so easily possible as to make it into official specifications.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Oct. 31 2002,23:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">i love the song when the helis take off for the mission , voodoo child by hendrix , that's music just a question : what's the name of the song played right after the briefing when you see the deltas and rangers preparing for the battle in the hangar ?<span id='postcolor'> "Falling to Pieces," by Faith No More.

And yet, aircraft are overloaded, and fly. But definitely not recommended, though. I notice you used the phrase "allowable payload." What is the aircraft capable of in emergancies? BTW, You can modify the fuel quantity in the editor.

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SelectThis @ Oct. 31 2002,198)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The reason we only have 4 on the sides is because of the research and advice we got from people with some real experience with the littlebirds. There may be room for 6 but in practical terms only 4 are loaded (notice the harness rings on the plank mountings?.. only 4 of them there).<span id='postcolor'> My two cents on this is leave the ability to pack 6 (or even 7 or 8, including space in the rear cabin), but stress that SOP is to carry only four on the planks. That leaves an option open if something "goes horribly wrong." Any way of simulating a performance hit for overloading?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 07 2002,03:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the scene where Pilla gets killed and Hoot takes over on the .50 cal. Whats the name of the piece of music that was playing in the background? Anyone know?<span id='postcolor'> That particular track is called "leave no man behind."

...The war against Spam! Get over here lock 'n load, and filter out the crap that interferes with your reception of unsolicited pornography! Anti Spam software Does this post come under the definition of Spam?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (TaNK_Em @ Oct. 31 2002,03:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Peoples life are more importent then fucking anti spam software if we dont fight the terroist they will strike again and kill<span id='postcolor'> I refer you to Ed Kroenaur's parting comment to Sergeant-Major Dickerson.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ Oct. 29 2002,17:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh...another thing. Â I don't believe the real life miniguns move at all. Â From what I've read on the AH-6, the miniguns are fixed position weapons unless they have a new gun mount that allows for this. Â <span id='postcolor'> Actually, at least on the Huey hog mounts, they swing left to right 10 degrees automatically while firing to maximise the area effect. Not sure if the Littlebird uses the same type of mount though; I'd be surprised if it didn't. BTW; excellent job BAS; personally, I think they are very nimble little machines, but I use a joystick when flying. Any news on the ETA of the new Blackhawks?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Oct. 27 2002,18:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Arghhh! Does anyone listen? You can't possibly agree that the plan was carried out correctly all the way through. The Special Forces did a good job, but the refusal to inform doctors of the gas used was a complete fuck up! If the emergency services had been told, the operation could be hailed as a great success, but sadly, the aftermath left a lot to be desired. ...and believe it or not, reading Tom Clancy books doesn't make you a counter terrorist expert. I could pick holes in some of his publications all day.<span id='postcolor'> Your point being? 115 dead before they've even left the building is not a success, never was a success, and never will be a success. Despite what you say, there seems to be an awful lot of people here who think that a massive gas attack was exactly what the Counter-terrorist forces had in mind. That the Russian authorities refuse to give the doctors details of the actual agent used is nothing less than criminal, and for that, heads should roll.

Here's a likely scenario It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that the authorities were able to put a lot of gas into that theatre in a very short time. I think it's possible that the anti terrorist teams were fully aware of the consequences of dumping a ton of this gas into a confined space, but circumstances overtook them. How more likely do you think it is that the plan was to introduce the gas slowly over a number of days, by which time the terrorists would be incapable of putting up a fight, but in no danger of actually dying? Circumstances took over. It may even have been in the minds of the Russians to allow some of the hostages to be shot, buying time for the gas to work. But the hostages panicked, and suddenly the situation was out of control. The terrorist bombs were in place. the ground commander has every reason to believe they will be detonated shortly. what does he do? Whatever his nationaliy, he's out of choices.

On our Channel 4 news ten minutes ago, 115 dead by gas, only two actually shot.

It IS time to let go; this has degenerated into an unproductive slanging match. I think the best thing that could be done is DKM, do with the model as you see fit. I believe that you are wrong, but do you really give a shit what I think? I would request that you allow somebody, Perhaps Aaron Ash if he's willing, to have a look at your config and produce an alternative for realism freaks. If you are feeling insulted by this controversy don't be. If your addon wasn't worth it, who would be arguing so much over it? Sometime in the future, the will have to be an organisation like the 1% team of CFS2, who will be able to co-ordinate and produce a set of unified damage values for OFP. It will save a load of goatshit in the future.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Oct. 24 2002,22:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see what you mean, but I've also read the specifications of the vehicle on that site. It's obviously at least approved by the manufacturer's as a demonstration tool, yet it makes no mention of dual capability, which to me would seem to be a major selling point. Ground target, or low-flying drone?<span id='postcolor'> Ground target indeed. You'll notice they don't mention the guns having a capability against surface targets either, people who are familiar with the type of radar tracking the Tunguska uses would naturally assume dual capability is possible. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/tunguska/ </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> <snip> The Tunguska-M1 vehicle carries eight 9M311-M1 surface-to-air missiles. The missile (NATO designation SA-19 Grison) has semi-automatic radar command to line-of-sight guidance, weighs 40kg with a 9kg warhead. It is 2.5m long with a diameter of 1.7m and wingspan of 2.2m. The missile's maximum speed is 900m/s and can engage targets travelling at speeds up to 500m/s. Range is from 15 to 6,000m for ground targets and 15 to 10,000m for air targets. Two twin-barrel 30mm anti-aircraft guns are mounted on the vehicle. These guns have a maximum firing rate of 5,000 rounds per minute and a range of 3,000m against air targets. This extends to 4,000m against ground targets. <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> Cool. I stand corrected. Though there's still no mention of any ability to destroy MBTs with its guns.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Oct. 24 2002,18:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">its missiles have no surface to surface capability,<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For the video go here: http://www.rusarm.ru/comp.htm> Click on "video", scroll to the very bottom, the video for the tunguska is at the bottom left.<span id='postcolor'> If you look closely, you can see it launching a missile at a surface target<span id='postcolor'> I see what you mean, but I've also read the specifications of the vehicle on that site. It's obviously at least approved by the manufacturer's as a demonstration tool, yet it makes no mention of dual capability, which to me would seem to be a major selling point. Ground target, or low-flying drone?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Gen.Carnage @ Oct. 24 2002,15:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and you are not bothered by the shilka BIS made is able to destroy an abrams? The vulcan m113 can kill a t80 in game if it gets the time to do so too exactly the same goes for the tunguska, but since it just HAS more firepower than above two it will do it faster. Ofcourse a tunguska would steer clear from enemy MBT's irl, that is NOT THE POINT. in this game low calibre weapons will tear down the armor of any other vehicle, in comparison to that, the tunguska has more firepower than any other comparable tanks and will do this faster. Whether or not it would be able to do it in real life discussion is utterly futile, this gun is much heavier than the shilkas cannons and we gave it its power relative to that. How realistic would a F-14 that is impossible to shoot down be? tunguska is the answer to that, take it or leave it. im not going into any more comments about its firepower, ofp doesnt have any realism as it comes to firepower after all. Example: the rheinmetall smoothbore 120mm cannon loaded with sabot round would destroy 2 t-72 tanks in a single shot IRL. in ofp it takes 3 hits or so to destroy one, so stop talking about realism.<span id='postcolor'> I tried the F14, but concluded it's all but useless in OFP. Still the SA19's should be able to blow it out of the sky, likewise the guns should be able to deal with it if it gets into range. if even the Shilka can't take it down, then there's another model which needs more attention.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Oct. 24 2002,16:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ Oct. 25 2002,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes I probably can, but we were asked what we thought, and I'm telling him. Neither the Tunguska nor the ADATS is ready to be put in a serious simulation, which is a crying shame. From General Carnage's post before mine, it seems pretty obvious that their purpose is not to produce accurate models, but to just produce another super weapon. Good for them! Â But I won't be using it, and I can't believe that anybody interested in serious simulation would either. Hats off to DKM for producing good models. Telling them why they aren't producing great models isn't whining. Do you have anything to add to the argument proving one side or other, or are you being irrelevant?<span id='postcolor'> they asked for your thoughts , you gave them .... , so why persisting in this endless discussion ?<span id='postcolor'> ah, you're going for "irrelevant" then.

Why? what is wrong with getting as close to realism as possble? I agree about the shilka, not to mention the number Taiwan Workshop's Mk.19 grenade launcher do on an MBT. The fact is, that as I've stated before, both armour and anti-armour values need upping considerably to counteract the damage done by fragmentation/rapid fire weapons. Really, I'd love the Tunguska and ADATs in the game; but for what they are; Tunguska, lethal to aircraft at any range, but requiring deployment behind the line for protection. ADATS, similar, but requiring risker deployment forward because of its anti-armour capability.

Yes I probably can, but we were asked what we thought, and I'm telling him. Neither the Tunguska nor the ADATS is ready to be put in a serious simulation, which is a crying shame. From General Carnage's post before mine, it seems pretty obvious that their purpose is not to produce accurate models, but to just produce another super weapon. Good for them! But I won't be using it, and I can't believe that anybody interested in serious simulation would either. Hats off to DKM for producing good models. Telling them why they aren't producing great models isn't whining. Do you have anything to add to the argument proving one side or other, or are you being irrelevant?