cytosine

Actually, COC's excellent Command Engine *is* compatible with ECP, but you have to pre-disable ECP's Helo Coms and AI Join options by editing your ecp_settings.sqf file. After you set these options to 'false' then try launching OFP and they should play nice. Apparently this is due to the use of onSingleMapClick in both CE and ECP. I forget which OFP guru originally posted this, otherwise I'd give credit where credit is due. Since CE worked so well, I decided not to stop there and also added COC's UA1.1 + Tomahawks + DKM's new Paladin which was UBER cool! It was fun, but made the game almost too easy, at least for attacking the grounded ships. We could add some counter-artillery or add an artillery detect script (which is probably already in some COC function) then some of the aliens can hunt your arty down and stick their anal probes in it! Ahh the possibilities are endless!!!! Good job Hitcher, on a real nice set of addons! - Cyto

Yes, thank you for this great island. I find myself using noe2 more and more and haven't had any problems... Last night I was using it with Hitchers new spaceinvaders addons under the mapfact weaponspack mod (ECP edition). Grrrrrrrrrreat stuff! So far, I haven't had any problems with AI getting stuck, etc. Missions under the ffureuro mod also look REAL nice on noe2, so do missions under WGL5!!! Good job sniping-jack!!!

Suite!!! ATC Antonov works great and tastes like chicken!!!! Thanks! Cyto

I ran into a problem with the rtk_tomcat, but later realized I have a newer version than what ATC_rtktomcat is probably looking for. This version causes CTD if used with ATC. I believe this is the newest release (v0.95 released in November): Footmunch & TomiD's F14 It must be maddening trying to keep up with all the new releases, so I hope these links help. Also, I just d'loaded the newest Antonov addon v1.2. It's really nice, but only slightly works with the ATC_antonov config. Vit seems to have changed it from three models into one fully working model. It's great: Vit Antonov-124 v1.2 Hope these help. Yeah, I ran into the same since I only have limited number of craft in my mods/Addons dir and started out by loading your entire set into ATC/Addons. I would then "End Process" the flashpointbeta.exe each time and delete the appropriate ATC_* pbo. I wish there were a -debug flag that would just give you a list of all errors or missing addons at once! Such is life... ;~) Cyto

The more I play this addon, the more I like it!!! You rock UNN!!! If you can make 5 aircraft takeoff and maintain formation, we might actually be able to make some decent "Air Assault" or "Arty Raid" missions... NICE!!!! Cyto

Yeah, Bobcatt is right, even helo's with skids will taxi out. These are rules imposed by the tower and apply to all fixed wing (planes) and rotary wing (helo's) aircraft. But with skids, the pilot needs to bring the aircraft to a 2-5 foot hover and then taxi to the appropriate position on the flight line before 'pulling pitch' and starting ascent (usually a helo takes off right from the end of the run-way in the direction the runway points). There's no 'rolling' involved in the take-off. But helo's do obey all the same ground rules and take orders from tower concerning departure/approach headings and which run-way to come in on. "Roll on landings" like I described before, were only something we'd do as a 'training' excercises for the pilot's. They are not how we would commonly land. It's common to approach, then fly down the runway, then taxi to a flight line or tower designated parking area. It's the same motions an airplane would do, but helo's have the choice of setting wheels down or not. Some pilots maintain hover until in or close to their parking spot. It saves fuel to put it down on the tarmac, then taxi in. When I was with the 101st in Ft. Campbell, we had over 100 helo's (Blackhawk and Apache with a few Kiowa Warriors) parked on the east flight line and our own private run-way that only helo's used for departure and approach. For multi-ship missions a 5 ship "chalk" would taxi out onto the runway and line up before taking off. The flight commander would take orders from the tower and then give the command to depart. It was a beautiful sight to see 5 aircraft taking off at the same time!!!! As far the approach for a 'roll on landing', I believe vectors and distances are similar, if not the same, to fixed wing approaches. The nose does not tilt up like fixed wing aircraft as wheel brakes would be used to slow the aircraft once the tires hit the ground (our aft tire always hit first, so I guess the nose was slightly up, but probably because a Blackhawk's main rotors are tilted forward by default). During approach, the aircraft is gliding on the rotors, so no forward or negative airspeed is being pushed from the main's. However, regular helo landings (non-roll on) would require the pilot to pull back on the stick to slow his forward airspeed, but this isn't usually done until over the run-way. Let's just say that aircraft tech's get paid quite well (but only when you get out of the military and work for a civilian company like DynaCorp.) Blackhawk's have quite a long list of scheduled activities (this list does not include the "un-scheduled" problems that will 'ground' and aircraft making it unsafe or unwise to fly.) For every 11 hours of flight time on the Blackhawk, a PM-I maintenance activity had to be scheduled (a good crew-dawg could hammer this out in 30 minutes). At 30 hours, an engine flush. And at other intervals there were oil changes, avoinic checks, blade changes, hydraulic pressure tests, etc, etc... Minor stuff like this never really needed hangar time. Bigger maintenance activities like main rotor head changes, hydraulic pump replacement, gear box replacement, engine swaps, or the dreaded 500 hour maintenance check (PM-II) would prefer hangar time. But with 30 birds and only 6 spaces in our hangar, a crew chief might be stuck doing this work on the flight line. Not a big deal, unless it's raining or snowing out.... :~) Heck, in the field there is no such thing as a 'hangar' to perform these tasks, so like we used to say "it's good trainin!!!". Well, hope that helps. I'm an ex-crewchief, not a pilot, so I hope my answers are accurate enough for our purposes. Cytosine "Helicopters don't fly, they beat the air into submission!!!"

I'm a helo guy, but nonetheless, I lived on an airfield for 4 years in the Army, so hear's my 2 cents.... Military hangers are not usually used for storage or parking aircraft, they are for scheduled/unscheduled maintenance activities, especially at the busy airports where hangar space is considered expensive real-estate and aircraft are "parked" only on the tarmac or flight line (depending on your vocabulary!) So, yes, ground crews usually push them in with hand-trucks or tow them with GSE via tugs, or HMMWV's (I'll check my old hangar pics to see if I have any good examples!) We used a five ton once to push a Blackhawk into a hanger, only because we were lazy bastards. It didn't need to be done that way, but what the hell, we were bored and our circa 1952 tug was broke! For birds with wheeled landing gear a hand-truck or tow bar are essential for turning the aircraft while the crew pushes. Huey's can slide, but usually are mounted on a four wheel carraige assembly, then hand pushed. Blackhawk's have an aft wheel on a yoke that can be unlocked and turned via hand-truck or pushed/pulled with a skilled tug/hmmwv driver, much the same way fixed wing guys do from their pivoting landing gear assembly (both fore and aft). I know your more interested in fixed wing planes, but it's a similary technique. Has a pilot ever powered his craft into a hangar even though it's not supposed to be done? You betcha!!! Pilot's are meat-heads, plain and simple! Living dangerously is why their scrotes dropped in the first place. Are they sposed to and is it a good idea, NO!!!! :~) From a reality stand-point, I'd say no, don't power the aircraft into hangers since it's not really supposed to be done that way. The high temperature engines need to cool first before going into an area laden with flammable materials and waste. Plus, the US military being as uber cautious as it is requires 1 man per wing as 'watchers' to ensure the aircarft doesn't hit other objects or the hanger doors. But as an avid game player, I would LOVE to see a pilot land, taxi, and park in a hangar all in one shot!!!! Sounds like you've already got the script in the works so... WoooHooo!!!! BTW, we used to do 'roll on landings' in the Blackhawk as part of our regular training exercises. With enough forward airspeed and by neutralizing the main rotors this would allow us to glid in to an airstrip and land much like a fixed wing bird. All helo's can land like this, even the ones with skids. This is an emergency procedure when the tail rotor fails and the pilot needs to maintain forward airspeed less the bird spins out of control. With enough forward airspeed, the aft vertical stabilizer can keep the aircraft from rotating due to the kenetic energy in it's main rotors. Any hopes of simulating this obscure scenario? Don't worry, I'd rather you just finish the project at hand, but if it's easy to simulate.... Hmmmmmm.... :~) Thanks, keep up the good works!!!! Cytosine

Pappy, Have you e-mailed Dan regarding yours and Klink's wonderful creation? Â From the looks of his web-site, I bet this guy would JUMP out of his skin if he knew about how cool it is.... This would definitely make his day! Â Just a thought... mailto:dan@ptfnasty.com?subject=PTF History Hey, if your too busy making addons (and please don't stop, we need them!!!!), I don't mind being the one to break the good news... :~)

Although it's probably not the exact same problem your having, I think it might be similar to mine. I was trying to create a muliplayer mission with the CoC_Diver in it and was getting the "Cannot load mission. Â Missing addon 'bis_resistance'" message everytime I'd try to connect to a Linux or Windows server running my mission. To fix it, I did this: Opened my mission.sqm file with a text editor and manually added "bis_resistance" in the 'addons' section to the sqm code (don't forget the comma, unless it is the last addon!): <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> version=11; class Mission { addOns[]= { Â "bis_resistance", Â "coc_diver" }; addOnsAuto[]= { Â "coc_diver" }; After which, I was able to play on both Linux or Windows servers. Anyways, I hope that sparks some ideas on how to fix your problem. Â Good luck!

From what I can see, it looks like the Nasty is inherited from BigShip, not SmallShip: <table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">// water craft classes class SmallShip: Ship{}; // basic config for small ships - PBRs etc class BigShip: Ship{}; // basic config for larger ships - destroyers etc class boatw:BigShip{}; class cwkptfboat: boatw // or from configvehicles cpp list { I know your working on more important stuff, so I went ahead and tested it as SmallShip. Â I didn't notice any differences at all, and the AI didn't react any differently. Â Either way, I did it mostly because I'm just learning this stuff and just wanted to try it out... Â :~)

True. Â I tested it again and it looks like there were 2 RPG Vietcong in the squad that attacked me. Â They must have both shot at the same moment, so it appeared to be a single RPG. I also noticed the Port and Stbd 20mm guns zoom in pretty far compared to the fore mounted gun. Â Don't know if this was intentional or not, but just thought I would bring it up.

This is the best fricken addon ever!!!! Poor BIS, they're not going to have any cool new stuff to put in OFP2 because you guys keep improving the existing game!!! No wonder they keep bumping the release dates back... ;~) Any plans to have enough cargo proxies for a small squad? I want to be Charlie Sheen, ya know! Also, I am kinda bummed that the small arms guys won't shoot at you, but understand the implications of it. Not even a VC DSHK would shoot at me! Could you define the boat as a SmallShip class to somehow get around this? I noticed they will shoot at the BIS Mark II PBR and thought maybe it was because of the base class of the vehicle? A single RPG was able to destroy my PT boat, can you increase the hitpoints (or whatever you call it) so that it takes a few rounds before being destroyed? I'm no PT expert, but I would think an armored ship could at least survive a few rounds? Man, GREAT Addon!!!! Cyto

Yeah, the article makes a good point: Why would they compare these two operating systems on COMPLETELY different hardware?!?!?!!?? Sure that mainframe is WAY more expensive, but it's also true that the IBM z900 has MUCH more capacity than a couple of low end Xeon procs. Xeon's are nice for a powerful workstation or a low to mid class server. They are a waste of money (and processing power) for desktop systems, though. With one z900 you can service hundreds (maybe thousands, depending on the type of transactions being performed) of users concurrently and the machine would probably be about 50% idle during peak hours of the day. Let's see how many dual proc Xeon boxes you'd have to cluster to get the same performance for a high capacity workload. Of course, then your increasing your administrative overhead because you now have more machines to care for. Comparing two OS's on vastly different hardware doesn't really answer the Windows vs Linux question, now does it? So let's be smart about it; I wouldn't buy a high end z900 to run photoshop, Outlook or Excel, now would I? Maybe for a true server process like Apache or as a database server like Oracle or Informix, but not for client tools. And on the other hand, who would put a muli Terabyte database on a two processor Xeon box running Windows or Linux? Maybe if it was a test or dev or archive database and you didn't care about processing power or multiple user concurrency.... They are comparing watermelons to walnuts. If Microsoft wanted a true comparison, they'd install Linux on that same Dual Proc Xeon and THEN publish the results. Why didn't they do that? And as toadlife pointed out, Microsoft could have still skewed the results to somehow make Windows look better. All the vendors do it, and I'm sure that third party reviewers do it too, just so they can get kick-backs or fame, etc. Regardless, it is still my belief that Linux TCO would have been less. But this thread is really about Linux on the desktop vs. Windows on the desktop, not Linux as a server vs. Windows as a server. "Cheap, fast, reliable. Pick any two." :~)