DrGonzo

Hi I'm trying to replace the original BIS island textures in Flashpoint with newer addon ones. I've already replaced some of them but I've found other better textures that have been released but it seems like their download links no longer work. These addons are discussed in this thread: http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard311/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=4;t=49214;st=105 Does anyone know of any way to get these higher-res road and Everon textures? Specifically, the ones by Atherakhia and Symbiot? Thanks

Ditto. Opera's the way to go. I can't really use default ones like Internet Explorer. It seems to crash on a regular basis.

You could always go to a university in your own country and then join an exchange program to study abroad. Woo-hoo! I'm goin' to Finland!

So, over all, it looks like they didn't do as badly as we thought.

Hm, I'm using this addon too and I just noticed that. You'll probably just have to edit the model if you want to fix it.

That's pretty cool, man. Good work.

I tried to make a mission where I played as some militant guy trying to ambush a Russian convoy. The piss-poor AI driving skills pretty much made the level unplayable. I mean, they'd drive 20 feet, then would nearly drive straight into an adjacent building, then they'd have to reverse. It was basically just this same process over and over again. In a word, Pish.

Enemies shooting you despite the fact that you're completely invisible behind a load of foliage? Welcome to BIS games.

Hello So I've made my own mod for FP, replacing models, effects, sounds etc., and I now want to add the impact crater dust effects that you get in the FFUR and SLX mods. The problem is that I don't know how to put the script into the game, and it obviously isn't simply a case of replacing the settings in the 'cloudlets' config. Could anyone help me and tell me how to put this effect into the game? It'd be greatly appreciated. Incidentally, does anyone know how to change the number of explosion cloudlets that appear when a tank shell explodes? It's a source of slight irritation that the Sabot round makes a huge fiery explosion but the HE-Frag round creates little more than a puff of smoke.

So it looks like Red Hammer's story-line is only quasi-impossible, after all.

I really don't see why this level is so hard, especially if you've got the Mi-24. Capture Guba near the town that's closest to his base, get the Mi-24, fly it high and use its guided missiles to take out both the Shilkas and the Scud. The Scud is either in the town at the very end of Kolgujev, next to a single house that's adjacent to the town or sometimes at the bottom of a hill, next to the forest that's beside the aforementioned house.

Pretty cool textures. They look like they'd go well on Kolguyev.

I do, even in the original campaigns, which I've played inumerable times all the way through. Chalk it up to OCD. I always like to put briefings into my own missions too. Levels feel incomplete without them.

I haven't played past 'Manhattan' or whatever it's called. Still, what I've seen of the campaign thus far is pretty good, bugs aside. For the most part, the voice acting seems fine too, except for the guy the does the antagonist. It'd be funny if it wasn't so irritating. Sounds like that guy from police academy. I may get round to finishing it at some point but nevertheless, as far as I'm concerned, I think the original FP will remain the Magnum Opus.

Am I the only one who notices that if you keep retrying in a level, or if you inflict enough damage to the enemy, then the enemy seem to become very aware and very accurate? This happened to me particular while playing 'After Montignac' because it's the kind of level that usually requires several tries, especially if played on the harder difficulty settings. It appears that the enemies will eventually adapt to every strategy you try to use against them. Similarly, I often find that if you destroy the BMPs or the T-72 in this level then the patrols will be more likely to spot you, shoot at you with greater accuracy and the Hind will circle over you and shoot at you. Then again, I may just be being paranoid.

Are you kiddin'? I hardly play anythin' else! The game just has a unique feel to it that seems to make it immortal, despite its age.

Spelling errors and threats of grievous bodily harm aside, Resistance is, in my opinion, the best campaign.

The GRAA mod is really good. It has an open config so it's easy to replace units, sounds and stuff within the game. The SLX Mod isn't bad either.

Good.... because if he doesn't... we'll break his legs. :D

It's a bad idea to announce your intention to kill someone over the internet. :D

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Despite all the platitudes about 'change' and all that it always seems that when these people get into power they revert to politics-as-usual. A large part of the problem is the credulity of the voters who fall for it in the first place. Still, there's always going to be people who're displeased with certain political policies. You can't prevent people from disapproving of the elected government, irrespective of who's in power.

I've done it with the GRAA mod. You just have to replace the weapon models and other relevant parts in the weapons config with those in the addon you want to replace them with, whether it's RHS or LSR weapons. It wouldn't take too long just to replace the weapons.

Arma-bashing? Might I join you? Yes, I don't much care for the voices in Arma. The voice acting in the original Flashpoint was a little rough too though. But the Arma voice acting for the RACS guys was so bad it would've been funny if it wasn't so annoying. Much to my chagrin, it appears they've retained one of these god-aweful voice actors to do the voice for the Lopotev in Arma 2.

I actually haven't played the game without this patch and I don't intend on doing so. It makes it look really good, despite the intrinsic blurriness of Arma's graphics.

@Baff1 "Murder is murder, it makes no difference to me whether you think you have just cause to murder someone. Just because you think they "deserved it" doesn't make it any less murder. They are still dead, you still killed them. Pre-meditated murder, is actually considered a greater crime here than murder in hot blood." That doesn't contest my original point at all, so fine. That, in fact, appears to acknowledge the universality of the idea of murder. The point you previously made concerned the obvious fact that execution is not universally agreed upon regarding whether or not it is murder. Interestingly, this also seems to indicate that you believe that killing is always murder (i.e. wrong) irrespective of the circumstances. If that's the case then I don't understand why you need to know the particular circumstances of a person killing another before you condemn it or acknowledge it as being wrong. You're right that killing is a nuanced thing, although it's not entirely clear if that's how you see it. But your original point was this and it is this that I'm contesting: "Of course I can't condemn peoples actions without understanding the circumstances in which they occoured." So, for the sake of simplicity, I'll give a less nuanced example: It is easy to condemn a child molester that rapes a small child. I can't think of a single justification for such an act. Regardless, however, this is largely just for the sake of argument. We know why the Iranian government does what it does and we can safely say that the people it kills for their sexuality or their religion are not being killed with any moral justification. What they are doing is completely immoral and dictatorial. Even if you hate homosexuality or other religions, that's still not adequate justification to infringe on the rights of other people, let alone kill them. I don't agree with you or your opinions but I doubt you'd think that gives me the right to have you killed or have you imprisoned. Are you sure that the majority of the Iranians really support the government there? Even if it is it could well be a very slight majority. But either way, I don't blame all Iranians. And the Iranians are free to have their biases, just not to violate the rights of others without any real basis. Even then, Iran is an ancient country with a great deal of history and culture. I never dismissed it as an evil tyranny, my criticisms are of its current government. "Why it is wrong for you to impose your value system on Iranians and not for Iranians to impose their value system on other Iranians, is because they all share a common value system with each other that you do not. They all have first hand experience of living in Iran and with eachother and you do not. They all have a directly vested intrest in the society that they are living in and you do not." Clearly the Iranians don't all share the same value system and that's why they are in conflict with each other; the conflict between liberals and conservatives. And the points you make only concern why it's wrong for me to impose my values on the Iranians; a fact that I never contested to begin with. You do not give any justification for the imposing of one group's values onto another group. As an aside, if their value system made them mutilate the genitals of their adolescent females and my value system strictly forbade such a practice, I might venture to say that their adopting my value system would be for their benefit, despite the fact that it was not developed within their country. The same may be said for practices like 'honour killings' or wife burning by people in certain parts of Asia. The value of certain cultural practices is not determined by cultural relativism; i.e., cultural practices are not all equally valid. They all have an interest in that society? I have an interest in my society but it doesn't give me the right to tell people how to dress or what they can say or think. As I've said, I don't agree with you, I understand that we both live in Britain, and once again I'd have to say that I'm sure you wouldn't give me the right to impose my values onto you just because I've got an interest in the society in which we both live. "They are eachothers peers and you are not. Tried by a jury "not of my peers" is hardly a great recipe for justice." I'd far rather that my peers be objective and unbiased foreigners than native religious crackpots. As another aside, I found this interesting: "Iran wants to usurp the wests colonial dominantion in the middle east with it's own. I would rather see them bombed than this happen. It doesn't mean they are evil for wanting this any more than I am for wanting to maintain our dominance over them and their neighbours." So it's not OK to impose one's values onto others but it's OK to bomb them? You talk about not imposing on others and yet claim that you want to 'maintain dominance' over them? Hey, if you say so. :D