Stag

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LAC_ROB @ May 21 2002,17:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">erm excuse me. I dont think the RAF had Hercules in the Falklands Conflict, and if they did they didnt have sidewinders. Because there is no room for a weapons systems operator on board. The British only used chinnoks and helicopters to transport the troops and Vulcans and Harriers to attack. So i have read anyway. I have been on a few hercs before adn that one looks dapper  <span id='postcolor'> they did. Notice the refuelling probe that seems to be unique to the RAF? THe original conversions were done in a matter of hours so that the Hercs could make it that far. Staging from Ascension Island, they paradropped pallettes until an airstrip became available. But I don't think they ever carried Sidewinders.

I think that such a scenario would bring an unfair moral dilemma onto a squaddie; there's his GPMG with a hundred round belt of silver bullets. Does he fire it, or pawn it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh I know it's not the model itself. Â When I say model I mean the entire addon as a whole. <span id='postcolor'> Sorry for sounding condescending; I misunderstood what you were getting at. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When I say model I mean the entire addon as a whole. Â Tinkering with it, as they did with the AMX fighter just leads to an almost impossible aircraft to fly. Honestly I don't care much about how realistically the plane handles.<span id='postcolor'> Not tried the AMX yet. my downloaded files recently underwent gravitational collapse and produced a quantum black hole which ate a sizeable portion of my drivespace. I cleaned house, and am being more carful with my downloads. If I ever need the AMX, I know where it is , but I digress. Given that what you say is true, then clearly there is a problem with the aircraft's flight model. This has been edited once, There's no reason why it could not be edited again, using guidance from a data source which can produce consistantly accurate values for all aircraft. performance problem sorted, and we get to find out if a Hawk really can outturn a Raptor . </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I just want the damn thing to be reasonably easy to fly as I'm not a "Super Realism" flight simulator buff. Â I mean I like flight simulators but if they require a masters degree in advanced avionics and flight control systems then I skip those flight simulators. <span id='postcolor'> You'll note that I said as closely as possible. OFP as it is at present couldn't really cope with that degree of realism. But As I mentioned, I play Falcon4. The F16 is incredibly easy to fly. It's only when you try to use its fighting systems that you need two asprin. Most of these systems are not in OFP, and I doubt ever will be; When all is said and done, OFP is still closer to its roots, a First-Person Shooter, than it is to a virtual battlefield system. The size of the islands limit the scope of air operations, for one thing. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BIS had done a fairly good job with making the A-10 and Su-25 flyable and did a good job with the auto-landing capability for those of us who suck at flying and don't have a nice flight-simulator joystick, with throttle control, ect... <span id='postcolor'> I agree. Why change a winner? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For example I know a lot of flight sim buffs who HATE the helicopter flight control system. Â Personally I think that it's one of the best I've ever used in any helicopter flight simulation as it's easy to fly the helicopters in OFP and I can do all kinds of high risk, daring maneuvers without crashing 2 seconds into the flight like I do with something like Apache vs Havoc. (I love flying down streets in between buildings in the Cobra gunship). <span id='postcolor'> AvH? I actually bought a set of rudder pedals especially to play that. Still crashed. I'm with you on the Helo flight model.:) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Â At any rate that's just personal opinion and I respect yours because I know how dearly a lot of flight simulator fans love accurate flight controls. Â But if the AMX is that difficult to control in real life then I have new respect for those Italian pilots. Â Same goes for the soldiering part. Â I served in the Army and I know that OFP is not entirely realistic in the ground combat part. Â For example there are no gun jams, you don't have to change barrels on MG's, you can run forever, ect.. ect.. but if they added some of those things it might make the game a lot more frustrating and less fun, not to mention that the extra stuff might slow down the frame rates some more on missions using a lot of units. <span id='postcolor'> But as far as the ground war goes, why not have all the whistles and bells? Everybody seems to forget that the game difficulty level can be adjusted. Sure, there is the boost to the ego from being able to say "Hell, I play on Full Realism all the time." How about we call the new level "Boringly Realistic" to keep the average gamer happy? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 21 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> For me more important then a realistic flight control system on a OFP aircraft are relatively realistic weapons, realistic textures and models (refueling probes on some MH-60s would be nice), realistic crew/passenger load, and a easy to fly flight control system that makes the aircraft a joy to fly and not a horrendously frustrating experience for those of us who are not hardcore flight sim fans and who don't have all the flight sim hardware.<span id='postcolor'> I don't believe the two aims are mutually exclusive, at least with ground weapons. but when you start lobbing daisy cutters, or just plain 1000kg bombs around, things may start getting a tad uncomfortable. Then, I guess its down to the mission designers to be careful. Yeah, the drogues on thwe MH60s. surely a mod could take one of the present models, scrounge 4 polygons from somewhere and make one? who needs undercarriage struts, anyway? Just hover! Â

Very cool!

The Sighting unit attached to the SLR is a SUIT (Sight Unit, Infantry, Trilux). After a bit of research I found out it was issued to certain units in the Falklands War (Guards). By 1985, when the SA80 is trickling thorugh to the troops there should be a fair few around.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ May 20 2002,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> That's a very nice model! And the texture looks great. Yep, could be a good weapon for resistance, the FAL is one of the most widely used AR's. I don't remember where i heard it, i know the FAL is full auto capable, but i think i heard somewere that the L1A1 is semi-auto only... is that true? Â <span id='postcolor'> Correct. the British and ANZAC versions could only fire semi-auto. FALs are pretty widespread, even today. Latest addition to the family:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Miles Teg @ May 20 2002,20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree with the original poster on this thread.  While certainly it is not possible to get prefectly realistic aircraft, A LOT can be done to improve the exhisting models.  I also noticed that the Huey's fly really fast.  What I have to is set their speed to "limited" on their waypoints.  This controls the problem more or less.  However addons such as the AMX fighter bomber are fatally flawed quite literally.  If you've ever tried to fly it, the role rate is absurd.  Even using the keyboard to fly it, it spins out of control extremely easily and crashes.  Also I wasn't able to get the AI pilot to land the plane when I tried using various scripts that had worked on the Hawk addon (although the Hawk AI pilots sometimes don't land on the runway).  So right now the AMX aircraft only seems good for use with AI pilots which is a shame.  Also Martin sticking a 30mm cannon as a door gun on his Huey was a bit disappointing.  I thought he was going to use the minigun from the Kegetys "Kiowa Warrior" addon instead.  With a little remodelling of the .50 cal gun and some retexturing it could even be made to look like a real minigun.  For all of you who say, "Well go do it yourself" I have indeed tried messing with Milkshape doing some screwing around with the black hawk "blocks" and it's hard as hell which is why I have great respect for guys like Martin and Eviscerator who have infinite patience.  However I do not have the time nor the skill to do this type of modelling at least not yet.  In the mean time I think there is nothing wrong with giving MOD makers some constructive criticism especially on those MODs where I have first-hand experience with the real equipment/units or where I have a lot of literature and knowledge on that equipment/units  (U.S. Army manuals, Jane's Defense Weekly publications, ect...). So hopefully any mod makers will take this as constructive criticism and indeed do a little bit of research on their mods.  If the goal of the mod is to be realistic, I recommend getting in touch with military or ex-military people who are familiar with or who have direct experience with the vehicles, weapons, and/or units that you are modding.  I've been giving a bit of constructive criticism myself that I think has helped things quite a bit.  For example I let Christoph know that his RPK's gas tube was too far out and that only the barrel section needed stretching.  He also realized this at the last moment but I think my feedback (written in a friendly manner) encouraged him to fix the problem which he did...and the result is a very nice looking RPK light machine gun that looks fairly close to the real thing.  So to all the modders here, keep up the great work, but also don't settle for mediocre addons when slight adjustments can make it a much better and more realistic addon.  Chris G. aka-Miles Teg<GD><span id='postcolor'> Actually, Miles, the model is not the problem. You could model a brick, give it the data of a Blackhawk, and it would perform quite nicely, thankyou very much. The information which tells the aircraft to miss the ground in a particular way (or not, depending on pilot skill) is kept in a seperate file. You don't need to be a modeller to change this info, just patience, and possibly a degree in maths. It's an aspect of the job I've not looked into yet, but I know other people have. I fly CFS2, Falcon4, and a couple of other sims (I did a few models for CFS2, but never got as far as publishing). CFS2 has a group called the One Percent Group. What they do is publish flight models for different aircraft which are alledged to be within one percent of the performance of the particular aircraft. It would be really cool if something similar could be done with OFP models, but it would require the agreement of the various people which edit these files. As for the F22/hawk thingmie; doesn't matter if you can turn the bird ass over tit in a microsecond, the human body can only take so many Gees, even with assistance. But until a Hawk and a Raptor get into a knife fight, or the US Airforce releases some highly classified documents. nobody can say with certainty. I said the Hawk probably can out turn a Raptor. but I wouldn't put money on it.

The weapon is an L1A1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR), which is the British version of the FN FAL. It was the standard service rifle for UK forces prior to the adoption of the SA80. I intend to bung the weapons I've done on British troops, for a little campaign I've got in mind. But I guess there's no reason why the resistance couldn't have aquired some, in fact given the circumstances of the campaign, its a very good possibility.

No it's not. try to prove it with a screenshot, and I'll prove it isn't. Another thing, I want an apology.

I think a Hawk probably could out-turn an F22; It just doesn't have half a Tandy superstore bolted on. For myself, I would like to have the OFP performances as close to real life as possible, but I'm certainly NOT going to criticise any mods which have been created. Perhaps you could make the relevant adjustments, Camelhammer? Though when you did, I doubt you would get 100 percent agreement on them.

It's a doddle once you know how. Before I was applying the texture directly to the part, but I came up against some problems yesterday, so I took drastic action (For me, anyway) and tried the tutorial. Basically, select UVW mapping, select the Gizmo, and apply the texture to that. There are a few more steps, but that should get you started.

As long As I get it...

Got the papers in though. I think BIS will honour it if it was sent, otherwise they would have just told me no? Time will tell.

Bummer. Looks like I got mine in just in time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KDF @ May 19 2002,14:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wardog..seems the SUIT was designated L2A2 in Brit service, someone has put up bits of its manual (including a nice diagram of the view thru it..) at the below link:<span id='postcolor'> EXCELLENT! Thanks mate!

I lied. Signed The Papers for Oxygen, so hopefully these will get kicked out:

Here's the Template I was using for the L85. As far as width goes, you may be right. finding plans for firearms is a bit difficult:

No, daft idea.

Quick and easy. Make a copy of your plan view and paint it. then slap it onto the object through the materials editor. My experience with GMAX is limited on this aspect so far. you seem to require a seperate image file for each object, but I may be wrong. So 1 file for the top of the wing, one for bottom, etc. Can anyone confirm this?

A bit of evidence from the site where I originally got the image: FN FAL Variations Doesn't say how widespread its use was though. The 30 round clip came from a BREN. I didn't know they could do that.

The nose on the P38 isn't quite right. Have you got plan views of the aircraft set as viewpoint backgrounds? You'll find it a major help: Keep at it

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KDF @ May 18 2002,07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The the scope on the SLR was called the SUIT rather than SUSAT if I recall correctly. The SUSAT recticle looks like the outline of an upward pointing arrow -its point is the aimpoint<span id='postcolor'> Thanks. 1. Was it in general UK issue? 2. Got any images?

Easy to beat. I'd just buy a new Mini. (British humour)

Well, If I'm going to make it I'd better prove it. I can see the bloody thing in my mind's eye, and I think the photo was taken in Belfast. Time for a visit to the library, and their copy of Janes.

I'm sure Ive seen photos of SLRs with SUSAT fitted. As for that rifle being an FNC. I disagree. this is an FNC: Disregard the stock, of course 30 round clips were issued by Aussies, Canucks and Argies for a heavy barrelled version (LMG), But the same magazine could be (and was) used in the standard rifle. What cheek support?