DWG

Stryker would obviously be topical... ...not to mention Warrior and Saxon

IIRC, BT actually had a defensible case in that they had a patent covering what could be considered generic hyperlinking that predated the WWW protocols, though I'm unclear whether it predated all hyperlink-like technologies that had been researched at places like PARC. However, this patent is rather more dubious as 3-D to 2-D projection algorithms were a standard part of my undergraduate CS course several years before the patent was issued. The main patent (apparently there are around 25 involved) is at: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...RS=PN/4,734,690 it's fairly badly ga

ISTR either the Croatian or Back to Kosovo mods (or both) had the Yugoslav equivalent.

These all look good, but the 73mm gun tube on this one looks too narrow, it should be around half the height of the turret or two thirds the width of the missile.

Stumbled across this while looking for something else: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewt...tart=0&sid=3ec9 d5c21cc779cb39c50a5dc385a7a9 Seems overly complex, but you could model the two magazines as two .gun files, the primary weapon for the 50 round mag and the secondary weapon as an underbarrel weapon with the same stats and the 15 round mag. OTOH definitely needs some better pictures to be modelable.

In general you can work around any clashes, but it can need pretty extensive renaming of files and the references to them, if the problems extend to RSBs then you'll also need to reskin the affected characters/objects post rename. In the end it all depends how much you want the mods to work together and how happy you are with tweaking stuff.

Actually, it's the texture that jars for me. The model's an MH-53J/M Pave Low III, the spec-ops version of the H-53 series, but the texture is Navy, and the Navy only fly the MH-53E Sea Dragon mine countermeasures variant (without the radar nose and external tanks). The only MH-53J/M operator is USAF's AFSOC, the CH-53 transport variants are flown by the USMC and a few export customers such as Germany. The model has a lot of potential, be a shame to spoil it for a ha'porth of tar.... Plenty of info at: http://www.mh-53pavelow.com/

As sold, semi-auto only. As modified by your typical street-scum, full-auto only.

Except that the M136/AT4 LAW is precisely what the M72 LAW has been replaced by IRL.

SOPMOD is the rail mount and accessories SOCOM are the people who use it.

There's seems to be a lot of flak being thrown at the demo, I just find it amusing that much of it is aimed at things I see as positive developments in terms of realism. All team members having an M136/AT4 -- that's a generous scale of issue, but IMO much more realistic than limiting them to a 'demo' class that simply doesn't exist in real life. Adding the AT4 kits to all classes was pretty much the first thing I did to GR1. Now here's hoping it's one each and no more, changing the AT4 kits to 1 round only was the second change I made (closely followed by adding all the specialist weapons t

The EH101 Merlin is made by AgustaWestland (EH101 = European Helicopter Industries 01 -- someone misread 'I' for '1' at an early stage of the proceedings), NH-90 is made by NH Industries (i.e. Eurocopter + Agusta). Merlin is 50% larger than the NH-90 -- most of the Scandinavian helicopter contract went to NH-90, but the Danes opted out because they needed the EH101's extra power and spare engine for SAR over the North Sea. For pictures of the NH-90 see http://www.nhindustries.com/page7.htm and http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/NH90.html Both Merlin (UK, Italy, Japan, Canada and biddin

It's a Shadowrun weapon, not anything real, see http://www.geocities.com/flanker562/Weapons/hk77ukse.htm

XM29 has not been cancelled. It has been split into the XM8 and the XM25 for spiral development (common DoD terminology for doing the bit we can now and the rest later). If they can eventually get the XM8/XM25/fire control computer combination down to a usable weight then that will be fielded as the XM-29. Don't hold your breath for it, but it's premature to say XM29 is dead. What's almost certainly dead is the 20mm Airbursting round, as the XM25 will use the 25mm airbursting round designed for the OCSW.

Assuming you mean wheels vs skids, that's correct for the Army's Lynx AH.9 -- definitely nice to have, though.

Beautiful models, but I wonder how practical some of these combinations actually are. Is there actually any point in putting a reflex sight (be it Aimpoint, Eotech or Trijicon) in front of an ACOG? The ACOG is going to block your rapid target acquisition through the reflex sight, simply because it's in the way, and the reflex sight isn't going to add anything to the ACOG, which already includes its own reticle. More and more combinations like this are turning up on GR models and other than the Aimpoint/Night Vision combo I'm not certain any of them make sense IRL. Comments?

Spelling glitches happen to everyone. Glad you've checked the model/map interaction. Depends how disciplined you are. With the degree there's only really you to make you do the work. Congratulations on the AS anyway.

That's how long these things take. $6.9B, that's how much these things take.

To emphasise that _rigid_ is not spelt the same as _ridge_ So people tell me. Have you checked what the GR engine does when part of a vehicle clips the bottom of a water area? I'm simply concerned it may have too deep a keel to be usable in many of the maps.

The Army brass wants it cancelled and the money redirected to the Apache Block 3 update, additional H-60s and eventually a new scout/utility helicopter. They've put in a budget request to that effect, though Congress could theoretically reverse it. It's been in the wind for a while, Comanche was late, had weight problems and suffered from being designed for a different kind of war than the one the USAr finds itself in. Amongst other problems it lacked a defensive jammer.

It seems churlish to criticise, but that should be _rigid_ raider, and the keel looks to be much deeper than it should be, the USMC site referenced below suggests a draft of only 10 inches for a slightly smaller version. It's difficult to find a good picture of them out of the water, but these things have to have a shallow draft and a largely flat bottom to allow them to run up onto the beach. See http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/ab/ab_rigid.htm and http://usmc.boats.dt.navy.mil/rrc/craftData.asp

Your right I have never seen that particular Herky model, but I refuse to believe that that is an airflow pitot. It's a pitot, but a special one. The W2 was a weather research aircraft and the nose stinger is an attempt to get sensors into as clean air (in terms of turbulence) as possible. There's clearly a pitot at the end (see http://www.tim-beach.com/riat00/heavies/heavies.htm) but it's entirely possible it isn't part of the aircraft's air data system. See also http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/mrf/c130.html for some details of the sensor fit.

It's perfectly valid in English, too or at least fusil is. The fusil was an early musket, giving rise to the variour regiments of Fusiliers scattered around the British Army.

I wouldn't even trust the explicit DOS delete command. I'm QC lead on a safety critical programme so I'm paranoid by profession and I have a very prejudiced view of the predictability of software in a Windows environment (especially C++ software, I'm afraid). My point relates to all executables, installers just happen to be the most common form within the community.

It occurs to me that there is an alternative approach to this problem that removes all risks, allows the anti-DAGRM pogrom to continue and places everything under the complete control of the user. When the utility starts, simply display this message or an equivalent: "This utility was developed by<whoever>, because of certain issues with other mod developers we would ask that any user please delete the following mods as a courtesy to us:<insert list here>." (It's also worth noting that any mod reliant on an executable excludes the Mac GR community by default)