krzychuzokecia

Ukrainian-made Negev. Ukrainian-made AR-15. Dear Leader said you can buy a tank in a survivalist shop, so why not a machine gun? :)

From my understanding, yes, hotfix works without problem. CoC guys only said that there may have been other anti-VBS functions in the code, but CWA doesn't use commands that are used to check if game is OFP 1.96 or VBS1 (well, apart from those who were deleted by Vektorboson's hotfix).

Hmm... It may have been ReblMan's Iraqi Insurgents - they had scarfs and stuff, but they were surely Arabian, not African. There is also an ancient Bibmi's African Militia - IIRC this was used in original Tonal. And, naturally, there are also African/Middle-Eastern units in DMA Toyota Wars mod/addon pack. However I've got no idea if there are any working mirrors of this pack.

Looks great!

Definately Tonal. Though, while the Redux version provides much better units it brings a bush-style landscape. So, if You'd like to have desert and jungle, it's better to use original Tonal islands. In other words, grab the older versions of BAS_I1.pbo, BAS_I2.pbo and BAS_O.pbo. :)

Discussion about it starts in this very thread. ;)

ACHTUNG! Wall of text ahead. TL;DR: modern pistols don't offer much more features than a Beretta 92 of Wonder Nine fame, to justify rearming a whole army. Even features of modular-as-it-takes SIG P320 might get buried in a sad reality of military bureaucracy. Just note guys, that Beretta was turned down because it's not a modular handgun, not because the M9 have bad reputation (in US armed forces, I should add - other military/LE users seem to not have problems with 92 and it's variants). That only raises a question: how modular pistol can be? For example, to change Beretta 92 full size into a compact, one needs barrel, slide, magazine and frame - which means that You need whole gun! The same rule applies to Glock 17 and 19, though with Glocks it's easier to change calibers within one size - you need barrel and magazine. SIG Sauer P320, which is so often hailed as the next-gen pistol, is really no much different. They've just made it's trigger housing easily detachable from the frame. But again, to change a full size P320 into a compact, you'd still need, yes, barrel, slide, frame and magazine! Where's that obscure, but oh so hypnotizing modularity? Truth is that You can't have a really modular pistol, because modern pistol designs are rather uniform and seamless designs. OK, but Army states that the main reason behind the modularity thing is because people have different hands, so pistols for them have to be different sizes. Can't argue with that, but again - modern armed forces have problems with proper uniform sizes for their soldiers. Yes, often soldier have to walk in too big pants, and too small shirt! So do you believe that now they'll issue pistols in size fitting this one grunt's hand? Nope - they'll buy boat loads of universal L-frames, and a small numbers of Ss and Ms. Heck, even if they'd buy pistols with removable backstraps, to change the length of pull, those parts would magically dissappear in armourers desks, or in field (which was the problem with carry-handle sights on USMC M16A4s). There's also another reasoning behind the MHS - Army wants to get back from 9mm NATO to .45 ACP. Why? Well, because .45 have more stopping power, and really 9mm is not 'Murican enough! However, the stopping power effect is something like Bigfoot - everybody talks about it, but nobody have seen it. Even if we'd agree with .45ers that 9mm doesn't make holes as big as a real man cartridge (which is not true - wounds made by 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP FMJs are similiar), then we'd still have problem with body armor penetration. In which the .45 ACP lacks due to it's low velocity. Oh, and not to mention that .45 produces bigger recoil, especially if someone have small hands - which contradicts the modular because of smaller hands requirement. In fact, the whole MHS seems to be another waste of tax money. This time Army searches for perfect handgun with perfect cartridge. But we all know that such things doesn't exist. The closest to perfection designs are probably HKs USP family of guns, with their stellar reliability, and (not so) new Russian 9x21mm which packs a better punch than 9x19, and have even better armor penetration. However USPs are too expensive to arm a whole army with them, and adopting an enemy cartridge doesn't sound really (they could've made a new one, but MHS is COTS-type programme). So, if MHS would end with actually adopting a new gun, it won't be a new quality weapon when compared to M9. Though it will provide ammo for Internet armchair-commandos, who will bash Beretta for not being tier-1 operator enough. ;)

Don't worry, and take all the time You'd need. This is mod that's worth waiting for!

That, and unloading of course (though on the other hand one should unload weapon without magazine, so empty mag well acts like ejection port...) Probably because the cheapest/simplest way is to make the port "closed" by the bolt (so when the bolt moves back it opens the port). Any loss of propellant energy is caused by gases sent back to make the gun reload automaticaly - this is called "gas operated reloading". However many argue if such loss of energy is significant enough to have any effect on the ballistics of the bullet/projectile. This is an old academic discussion between precision shooters using bolt action rifles, and those who use gas operated (semi)automatics. Bolt action users say that automatic weapons are "less accurate" because not whole energy of propellant is transfered to projectile. However, those who use automatics say that loss of accuracy is actually caused by the effect of the gas systes it has on the barrel - the barrel can't be really free floated (like it is in bolt action rifle), and the weight of the gas system affects barrel movement after shot (harmonics). What I wrote is very simplified and I can't even properly name that in English (it's not my native language), but I hope You'll understand at least some of it :)

Oh sh*t... My bad, I meant Eliteness, from Mikero. If Faguss approves it, it must be good! ;)

Usually I'm using this old tool, but sometimes it can produce weird results.

That clip, 1:12 - island-hopping campaign, when every day was a D-Day...

Unimog and Iltis, yes! :) Do You have plans for Iltis' predecessor, VW 181 (Bundeswehr Kubelwagen)?

All that fuss about US Army new handgun, while biggest M9 problem is an old type locking block, which is prone to break. Since 1980s Beretta introduced three newer, more reliable blocks, but to AMC it never happened, and (new) M9s are still using that old part (they may have changed that with M9A1 but I'm not so sure). After all, it's all a moot discussion answer of which lies in personal preferences. Some will prefer JMB's 1911 with it's slow .45 ACP bullet (with magical stopping power attribute) and a 7-round single stack magazine (because real men don't need more). Others will choose Glocks with their lightweight polymer frame (making 9mm recoiling like a .44 Magnum) and safe-action pre-set striker (which makes trigger pull awfuly sponge and unpredictable). MHS programme is going to be doomed just like IC was*. Let's be honest - there's really nothing THAT better with new guns, that'd excuse replacing all M9s. In the times of JSSAP it was different - US Army was falling behind with 1911s, when everyone was changing their guns to higher capacity double stacks with double action triggers. Now only new SIG have some really outstanding features, but again - will Army even use that features? I doubt - they won't buy different sized frames, different caliber barrels and so on. *Actually Individual Carbine was one of few sensible military programmes in last few years. M4 Carbine, while still a very modern and modular design, suffers from some disturbing reliability problems. Adopting a similiar, but more reliable design (most IC contestants offered basically piston driven M4s) could bring notable financial savings.

Thanks RageQuit and Zulu!

Hello all! I'm looking for General Barrons' Handsignals Command System v1.2b. Unfortunately OFPR.info hosts only previous versions. If somebody have the latest, I'd be grateful.

Thanks! :) Niech żyją Wiarusy! ;)

Nope :( That's the one based on Jonny's models. Weird, apart from the Deltas/Rangers, everything BAS on OFPR.info worked for me (in fact I was downloading these files a week ago).

I don't have "Complete Pack", but here are (IIRC) all BAS addons: - Blackhawks 1.0 - Pavehawks 1.1 - Littlebirds 1.1 - Littlebirds 1.2 Beta - Kiowa Warriors 1.1 - Chinooks 1.2 - Deltas/Rangers 1.55 (mirror bu Zulu1, thx!) - Russian OPFOR 1.3 - Tonal 1.2 - Tonal SF - Tonal Redux - TSF Redux - Infantry Kit. Have fun!

Well, as I've said I know about similiar patents/trademarks. Glock succesfully filed against Hungarian maker of blank guns - Zoraki - who were making Glock looking pistol. Austrian reasoning was that they felt Zoraki to be of inferior quality, which could lead it's users to believe that Glock is similiar POS. Kind of twisted logic but judge agreed. Also HK had some law suits against airsoft gun makers, however it was only after HK exclusively licensed their gun designs to Umarex. However, Izhmash/Kalashnikov Concern/whatever application outrightly states that this trademark will be pursued against toy makers/computer game developers who are including AK look-a-likes in their games. This actually never happened without other infrigement (like including trademarked logos). That's why I'm asking will this get through? It seems to be violating that fair use (or how it's called) rule which allows to make pictures/paintings/3D models of real-life, trademarked items. Does Russia law recognizes this rule? (Naturally, this would be also first patent/trademark that could be used against other manufacturers of AK-patterned weapons. There are a few of them in Russia, not only KC, but also Bulgarian, Polish and... Russian Molot and Tula who are not parts of KC. Will Izhevsk fight with other Russian AK makers? :))

Somebody probably have too much of free time: Kalashnikov to Protect its Rifle Brands TL;DR: if that patent would be applied to Kalashnikov Concern, anything that'll look like AK (or it's variant) - no matter if it's a weapon or 3D model in game - would need KC license. That means if BI were to release ArmA 4 with AK look-a-like weapon, they would need to pay a fee to KC, to release a game in Russia without making a patent infrigement. There are weapons which design (meaning looks, not internal mechanism) is patented (see Glock), but according to fair use rule this only applies to firearms - a Glock look-a-like model in game is perfectly legal if it doesn't contain (for example) Glock logo. Question is: will that patent be applied, or does it obviously conflicts with copyright laws?

It's me again. Could anybody reupload Ivosm's Multicam US Army, Rangers and Deltas? That HYK-based pack, as opposed to the one Jonny-based I asked a page earlier. :)

There are some really big guns here! But please tell me that this Huey in background will happen, please! :)

Thanks!

Could anybody be so kind to provide a working mirror of BAS Delta\Rangers 1.55? The one on OFPR.info only gives me a damaged archive...