Stag

Found it. FYI, in home grown OFP/OFP:R there are no groups defined under the Resistance (f2 menu). I bunged in an addon which added Groups for the Resistance, and of course used them, forgetting that BIS hadn't actually made them.

Here's what I found in the mission.sqm: version=11; class Mission { addOns[]= { "bis_resistance", "Ch47D", "Bizon", "RPG_Skorpion_Soldier", "groups" }; addOnsAuto[]= { "bis_resistance", "Ch47D", "RPG_Skorpion_Soldier", "Bizon", "groups" }; randomSeed=12125699; class Intel { briefingName="Operation Silent Shockwave"; briefingDescription="Scuds have been spotted at a maintanance depot. Destroy them."; hour=3; }; class Groups { items=29; class Item0 { side="EAST"; class Vehicles { items=1; class Item0 { position[]={3040.241699,21.959999,5994.942383}; azimut=270.000000; id=0; side="EAST"; vehicle="SoldierEB"; leader=1; skill=0.600000; markers[]={}; init="this setbehaviour""safe"";this setspeedmode""limited"""; Note "RPG_Skorpion_Soldier" and "groups" entries in "addOns" and "AddOnsAuto": I try to erase them, and they re-appear when I save the game. "groups" is of course the main problem, but I'm not using RPG_Skorpion_Soldier in this mission at all. How is this getting in?

Lets not sabotage the search engine, shall we?

I forgot where i found it. I was just cleaning out old files and came across it again

Excuse me, I'm typing with a white stick today.

You may remember I had trouble earlier getting the skin right on my GPMG model. Thanks for the feedback guys I would have said that earlier, but I wanted to exhaust a few options first. I'm afraid nothing helped. I decided to bite the bullet and build a model from scratch in O2, to see if this would make a difference, but when I tried to load a background into )2 to work from, it didn't show up. Here's what I've tried. The files are .gif format. I tried first to use the size 1024x512, then when I had no success there, resized it to 512x512. still nothing. Something is wrong somewhere. Has anyone come across this before or know a solution? Thanks in advance

Bloody good question! I like both, for different reasons. working for a patient single kill with silenced weapons is cool, or strapping on a whole company and driving in, blasting "Ride of the Valkyries" (well, actually "Don't Fear the Reaper") out of all speakers. I do wish I was able to execute particularly dim AI, though. Unfortunately, natural selection doesn't always work. Edit:(spelling and the middle ground) Going in as a grunt can be frustrating, unless we're talking about multiplay; putting your virtual life in the hands of a machine usually ends badly. Well, for me, anyway.

Anybody know a way to control the duration of the blackin/out effect? as it stands its just a wee bit to fast for my purposes. I did search, but if its been discussed before the thread is pretty elusive. Thanks in advance.

Thanks Dismas, That's what I was after, though the number returned is in base 10 (not a major problem) and to 5 decimal places. Now to figure out a way to get it to return only the first three.

THAT's what I was after. Finally, Can anyone see why this doesn't work? skiptime 5;titlecut[dayTime,"plain",10]

Anyone know if there's any way to get the time to advance to a specific point, or, failing that, displaying the time in title text?

Wow, that was quick! Many thanks, Mr. K.

4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 06 2002,094)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Probably. Killing Soldiers is allowed under the Geneva convention. Killing civilians is not. Lets look at this in reverse angle. Lets say in the 70's Brezhnev decided that it was time the USSR took over Europe. To save the lifes of Soviet soldiers, he nuked all Nato countries flat. He wiped out everysingle city and every single place soldiers might be. Would this be justified? Because he killed all those europeans to save the lifes of his men? Or do the rules change since its not America? Or, he only killed 1,000,000 civilians when predicted Soviet casualties were 1.5 million. Would this be right? Im betting someone will come up with some excuse that its not.<span id='postcolor'> Why bother going to war at all? Every single war in history has started basically because somebody wants something that is in someone else's possession. In the cold War, the west believed that the Russians wanted to make us all into good little Commies if we liked it or not, expanding the USSR's sphere of influence. Everybody seems to have forgotten; Nuclear Weapons are not built to wage war. They were built to make war too terrible to wage. The near total destruction of desired objectives would not be justifiable, it would be insane. Besides, If Brezniev Launched a strike like that, NATO would only retaliate in kind. There would be nothing left for anybody.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 05 2002,16:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">THink about what would happen if nukes weren't invented. We'd probably have discovered them a few decades ago not knowing what impact they could have on human life. They'd be used eventually, it just so happens they got used on Japan killing millions. Maybe people would prefer if we nuked japan today (27million and rising people in Tokyo). Nukes would be around today if they weren't invented during WW2, only today we'd have no idea what the consequences of using them would be, plus instead of destroying a million lives, we could destroy several millions lives per city. I mean, there comes a time when you have to stop whinging about the past and trying to be politically correct, if the A-bomb wasn't tested in Japan (Ending a war that had already killed million and millions of lives), it'd be tested somewhere else more recently where it'd kill a lot more people. Maybe they shouldn't have been invented, but hey, they were. Today they prevent wars and protect countless people, but because everyone is scared of being killed by nukes (how would you prefer to be killed? killed instantly in a nuclear blast, or dying underneath your smashed up house as Russian tanks pour into your country killing everything). We need to stop whining about the past saying how awful the human race is<span id='postcolor'> The nukes didn't kill millons. Inintial casualties were roughly 300,000, although there were more deaths from radiation poisoning. I think the death toll was still less than a million, though you must also consider genetic damage among survivors. Like I said, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, absolutely (well, except for that Al Gore part). My indignation is not over the US nuking Hiroshima, but over the fact that we (the world) have seen the effects of weapons of mass destruction and still keep them around<span id='postcolor'> Because like it or not, fear of them kept peace in Europe from the end of WW2 up to the dissolution of the USSR. It’s actually a pity that The USSR couldn’t have held together after Communism went tits up, because I happen to think that the world is a far more dangerous place now. Just look at all the small wars that have erupted since then. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Pearl Harbour was one of the most brilliant military operations ever, and I fully support what Japanese did to Pearl Harbour and pretty much in every war movie where Japs fight Yanks I support Japs, but Hiroshima was out of hand. There was no point in doing that.<span id='postcolor'> The estimated casualty figures for Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan were 1.5 million allied soldiers. That’s considerably more than the casualties caused by both bombs. I happen to agree that in hindsight the deliberate targeting of civilians in war is a crime, but that particular genie wasn’t let out of the bottle by the United States. By the time the Bombs were dropped it was widely accepted as a strategic option by everyone. Using nukes on cities was just a natural extension of that. In that climate, without the benefit of hindsight, what would you have done?

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income. ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull. AN AMERICAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead. A CANADIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. Your dairy operation is productive, and you sell 80% of the milk to the US market. The American government decides that you are taking advantage of federal subsidies to dump milk on the market below cost and slaps you with 25% "countervailing" duties to protect the interests of the above-mentioned American Corporation. Angered and enraged in typical polite Canadian fashion, you cheer on the Canadian hockey team to pound the USA team 5-2 and win Olympic gold. You let out a cheer, wave the Maple Leaf a bit, then apologize for the outburst and get back to milking your cows. A FRENCH CORPORATION You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. A JAPANESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them Worldwide. A GERMAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You reengineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves. A BRITISH CORPORATION You have two cows. Both are mad. AN ITALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch. A RUSSIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. A SWISS CORPORATION You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them. A HINDU CORPORATION You have two cows. You worship them. A CHINESE CORPORATION You have two cloned cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

Fair enough. But I think a better choice for a silenced pistol for Commies (at least Spetznaz) would be the P6. I'd be tempted to have a crack at it myself, but my info is sketchy, to say the least.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cybrid @ Aug. 02 2002,06:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I personaly think this thing would be very ineffective as a military machine, it sure looks cool though. Is there any advantage to legs over tracks?<span id='postcolor'> If the legs were long enough, it would be able to move over obstacles that would stop a tank dead. But that would mean a bigger, higher target. considering the efficiency of current AT weapons, that would be a Bad Thing on a battlefield where the best chance of survival is not to be noticed.

Two old terrorists are chatting. One of them has his wallet out and is flipping through pictures. "Yeah, this is my oldest. He's a martyr. Here's my second son. He's a martyr, too." ...There's a pause... The second terrorist says, wistfully, "Ah, they blow up so fast, don't they?"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (The Jub-Jub Bird @ Aug. 02 2002,03:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I forgot to put my point of view across...I think silenced pistols a top idea...I particularly want them for snipers...they could really use them to defend themselves when enemy units get alittle too close for comfort when enguaging them with the rifle would be too dangerous if there were more than one. Jubs<span id='postcolor'> Wasnt disagreeing at all. just pointing out that for Soviet forces, it would be a bit early, therefore, better for the Resistance. For the Commies, how about one of the "Hush Puppies" that they loved so much? Mind you, the AI may not be able to use it properly.

ROFLMAO!

should be ok on semi, but if fully modelled for OFP, in full auto it should be one round at the target and nineteen vapourising the seagulls

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (marshmanguy @ Aug. 02 2002,01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Im talking Pistol Pistols not slightly this side of machine gun insane uncontrollable machine pistols but that is cool.<span id='postcolor'> Dont be too eager to dismiss it. Granted it used a short 9mm round (Not as powerful as 9mm Parabellum), but it had a 20 round clip. Violent little sod, and if body armour cant be modelled in the game, deadly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (marshmanguy @ Aug. 02 2002,01:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why is it held like a rifle, and why is there a but. Â With the resistance engine you can make it so they actually hold them like pistols can't you?<span id='postcolor'> The Stechkin was a true Machine-pistol, with a VERY high rate of fire. Without a stock, it was all but uncontrollable. With a stock it just nearly bloody impossible. But it could fire single shot too.

What makes you think that could go where a tank couldn't? Its footprint would be heavier than a tanks, if you put comparable armour on it, it still looks incabable of crossing tank traps or anti-tank ditches. Wheres the advantage, except to the people who would be given Billions to develop it?