DWG
-
Content Count
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Calendar
Posts posted by DWG
-
-
delete the file "modsset.txt" in your ghost recon data folder.
Or just open it and delete the appropriate line.
-
I forgot to mention that another useful tool is a file manager/windows explorer clone capable of searching any type of text file (this rules out the XP variant Explorer which can't handle file types it doesn't know - I use Powerdesk for this). This allows you to search for any references to a file whose name you change for any reason.
-
Notepad.
-
I checked the files and everything seems to be in order, all the files are in the right directory and the entries in the .gun and .kit files seem to match, but I still dont see the guns when I want to select them.
Try cutting and pasting the name of another .qob file from the /model directory into the .gun file just to see what happens. I just traced one similar problem to an extra underscore in a model filename and another to the wrong .gun file named in a .kit file. If that doesn't work, try one of the models in the origmiss/model directory to see if that will show up.
As a further question, do you have the mods these files originated in still active? If you do, make sure your mod is the highest priority (otherwise what you are seeing could be an error in the original mod). If you don't, then try activating them just to see if anything appears.
.kit and have folders in the kit folder names rifleman,demolitions,heavy-weapons,and sniper.Put the .kit files in each one.Unconnected to the problem at hand, but it may be worth pointing out that the kits can go in folders of any name, what matters is that the <KitPath> in the .atr file matches. You can even mod the original GR .atr files to look in different paths.
-
Just to confirm the obvious: you have your mod activated and all the files you referenced are in that directory tree rather than under origmiss or anything else?
The kits are added to the list but the soldier isn't holding a gunThat would seem to indicate it's finding the .kit and .gun files, but not the .qob model file specified in the .gun file (missing .gun files seem invariably to cause a CTD). Open up the relevant .gun file in /equip and check that the file named in the <ModelFileName> tag is present in the /model directory.
and the pics in the lower right corner aren't there.Open the .kit files and check that the file named in the <KitTexture> tag is present in shell/art/kits.
-
The app doesn't use any default installation for its path, it uses the ghostrecon path found in that computers registry which is created when Ghost Recon is installed. If you have warez, or have installed and then moved the path without reinstalling to that new path, then you're path in the registry could be missing or faulty. You need to either reinstall GR or you can browse your registry and update this path yourself.
Yep, I moved GR post-install. Looks like I'll have to tweak the registry (aka Microsoft's worst ever design decision). Thanks for the answer.
-
if you have DS and/or IT the app wil autosense it and allow you to use them. If you select one or both of them then your available missions will be updated to include that expansion. Pick a mission and then push the RUN button.
Well, I've tried it out and it isn't autosensing DS or IT and pressing OK on the warnings screen takes you back to the team selector -- I take it it's looking for GR in the default install location, rather than where it actually is for those of us who have installed it elsewhere. Any simple solution?
Even if it won't run for a non-default install it's a neat trick. Are you willing to give some details of how it functions and what changes are required to the mission files?
-
had a good plan for the back but not the front
Lose the sensor ball, the pilot's and gunner's sights will pretty much match the nose form in the pictures. The tail isn't quite right, but most of the publicity shots are from before it was reworked with different endplates. You also want the Longbow radar cone atop the rotor. See:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/p...ase_001221n.htm
The production vehicle will also have the gun turret at the front of the underfuselage fairing.
But better than I could do
-
*cough cough, SA80 was looked at by H&K and the mag still fell out. I think.
The people raising the problem reports in Afghanistan eventually agreed with the team that flew out to investigate that the main problem was the cleaning regime, not the weapon. Notice that there seem to have been no significant complaints from Iraq. See http://www.navynews.co.uk/cgi-bin/advert/a...ds_4b.pl?iframe
-
The XM25 is just the 20mm Grenade launcher from the OICW. Just picture the OICW without the assault rifle component
Not quite. The 20mm OICW round appears to have been dropped, XM25 and XM29 (if it's ever fielded) are now going to use the 25mm OCSW round.
The first prototype (featured in GR) didn't performed quite well; there was some overheating problems. I don't know what factory produced that OICW, but I do know H&K also applied for the jobThe prototype OICWs were produced by a joint venture comprising HK and Alliant Tech Systems. The reported problems were a bit more serious than overheating, a 20mm round exploded in the barrel injuring two personnel, but the killer problem that led the US Army to split the development into XM8 and XM25, with a potential eventual convergence into XM29, seems to have been that they can't get the weight down to acceptable levels.
-
what the hell is the point of the f2 then?
It's probably an interim development step towards the G2, lets you sort out the other improvements before adding in the extra complication of feeding from the STANAG mag. There's a lot of this kind of thing out there, often with the same basic ID (for instance there are two major varieties of F-16C within the USAF, and there were 4 kinds of Tornado GR1 in RAF service).
-
Most weapon mods do not work simultaneously with other weapons mods.
I actually find very few problems, and none that can't be worked around if you're willing to make the effort.
But for the purposes of buff's problem it is going to be simplest to troubleshoot with just one active.
-
The thing that would bug me with the Osprey is tilting the rotor so it looks believable in flight.
The size of the GR maps the rotors would most likely already have been transitioned by the time the V-22 enters the map.
osprey (are they the same plane?)Yes. MV-22 Osprey -- USMC assault version, CV-22 Osprey -- USAF spec-ops version.
-
Just to confirm you have successfully activated them, are they listed in modsset.txt in your GR directory?
-
I think there was a rumour about British MoD thinking of replacing the weapon with G36 in year 2008
The plan is to replace L85/86 as part of FIST, the UK's future soldier programme, but the intended replacement is the F2000 IW/LSW, basically the same weapon with an electronic sighting system (and unconnected with the FN F2000).
See http://www.thalesgroup-optronics.com/pdf/F...%20brochure.pdf or http://www.sistemasdearmas.hpg.ig.com.br/s...of/soffist.html (in Portuguese, but good photographic coverage of the trials weapons). Despite the language difficulties the Brazilian site is the best I've found for open source summaries of the various future soldier programmes.
-
I think the L85A1 w/GL has been done in some mods.
As a point of accuracy the SA80 variant fitted with the UGL (note, not an M203) is an L85A2 -- the rebuilt L85A1. Both L85A2 and L85A2/UGL were first fielded in Afghanistan.
-
"WPN_C8" "C8"
<GunFile>
<VersionNumber>1.000000</VersionNumber>
<ModelFileName>iw_rifle_m4.qob</ModelFileName>
<NameToken>WPN_C8</NameToken>
Strange, the NameToken tag and the string entry match, that should normally be sufficient (note that this is one of the cases where GR chooses to be case sensitive).
Do you have any other mods active which also have WPN_C8 in their strings file? Or which have an unterminated string (i.e. an opening quote without a closing quote or vice versa)?
Other causes of these errors can include an unterminated tag in the gun file (missing '<' or '>' or '/' or misspelt tag name). Often this is in the gun file immediately preceding the one which displays the error. So check the gun files of the weapons for the kit that appears immediately before the one containing the C8.
-
my point is have you ever seen a pitot as large as an mh-60 refueling boom? In relation to that, all the ones I have seen have been very small. I personally havnt seen one that big, but if you have I would love to see it.
There speaks someone who has never seen the Hercules W2 (aka Snoopy). See http://www.oldprops.f9.co.uk/Lockheed%20He...l%20non-USA.htm , it should be obvious which one I have in mind.
-
your thinking of pitot tubes, and they are very small.
Actually it depends. Static ports are literally just a hole in the skin, pitots (dynamic ports) are as big as is needed to get them into clean airflow, that's why prototypes typically have longer pitots, or even tow a sensor behind the aircraft -- the aero guys haven't yet worked out the precise airflow so have to play safe. Some air data sensors, particularly on helicopters. are mounted on a pivot to keep them aligned with the airflow.
The other thing is I know in the army only unit that has air refueling booms are the 160th SOAR. I have never in 10 years seen a medevac with either refueling boom or extrenal fuel pods.The AAR boom is specific to the MH-60s, but all the UH-60s can be fitted with the External Stores Support Sytem used to carry the fuel tanks.
-
exe installers are mainly used because u can add text and cool pictures to it and i bet music will be available next noone wants to open a zip and just throw it on the mod folder we want to look at screen shots and read about it first
Oh great, more useless ???? cluttering up the download. People argue .exes are superior because they offer a greater compression ratio than zip, but a high proportion of mods out there are using as much as 80% of their total memory footprint for music files and the like.
Just because I happen to like GR doesn't mean I like your choice of music....
Lose the music files, lose the new GUI graphics, zip up what's left and you'll probably get a much smaller download than even the best compression a .exe could offer for the 'complete' package.
Zip also lets you put files precisely where you want rather than fighting with the installer and gives you the chance to verify the modder hasn't decided to modify stuff outside of the mod folder because he's under the delusion it's a good idea.
Overall, give me zip any day of the week. And I'm a PC user, so I can live with .exes if I have to. The MAC guys can't and they have my sympathy.
-
i don`t know if women could join british military combat forces
They can, but they can't be infantry or armour (or serve on subs in the Navy)-- so signals, combat engineers, RMP close protection and a variety of other near-front-line roles are all possible. We even had women SF operators in 14 Intelligence Company (undercover surveillance unit in NI) and the first woman passed the RM Commando course last year.
-
>>Can anyone tell me how to solve this little problem of mine? I can't seem to make them co-exist(rifles) in my personal MOd anymore. The problem is that both rifles share the same masterkey name(gun file). <<
This is a little more complex than just a rename as they're underbarrel weapons. You need to:
1: make sure that the two masterkey .gun files have different names
2: change the <UnderbarrelWeaponName> in each of the .gun files for the rifles they're hung under to match the new names of the masterkey .gun files (I'm not absolutely sure this is used, but tidyness never hurts)
3: In the kit file for each, change the <ItemFileName> of the <Firearm SlotNumber = "1"> to match the names of the new masterkey .gun files (remember, lower case only for <ItemFileName>)
In practice you only need to change one Masterkey, not both, but personally I rename all underbarrel weapons as (for example) Masterkey_on_M4.gun and M4_with_Masterkey.gun to make it explicit which goes with which (and the same for M203, GP25 and so on).
Contrary to the other advice in the thread you don't need to change the sound files as long as the system can see them in an active mod and both .gun files can quite happily have the same <NameToken> and a single reference in Strings.txt.
-
>>What experience would that be?<<
Let's see (Restricting ourselves to post-1900):
Afghanistan
Kosovo
Bosnia
Ivory Coast
Democratic Republic of Congo
Somalia
Iraq
Lebanon
Chad
Zaire (Kolwezi)
Vanuatu
Djibouti
Algeria
Vietnam (Dien Bien Phu)
Suez
WWII (Liberation of France, FFI, Russian Campaign, Operation Torch, Western Desert Campaign, Syria, Dakar, Oran, Battle of Britain, Battle of France, Norwegian Campaign)
WWI
China (Boxer Rebellion)
"How to drop your rifle and hold up a white flag."
It's the one thing they seem to lack experience in, even when hopelessly outnumbered. Dien Bien Phu, Operation Torch, Oran/Mers el Kebir, Camerone.
"Maybe its those crazy guys the French Foreign (?) Legion!"
With their French officers and the 40 to 50% of Legionaires who are officially Swiss or French-Canadian yet have suspiciously mainstream French accents...
-
>>Posts like that make me wonder if it is a good idea to put French troops in my mod. I've seen many posts in these forums slagging off the French.<<
Ignore them. Being able to disagree with other nations on specifics while remaining allies in general is something some people find hard to grasp. France took a different tack in Iraq, but was there in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Desert Storm and elsewhere. Not to mention the peacekeeping and combat missions they pull without US assistance (against Libya in Chad, for instance and in the Ivory Coast and DRC).
People conveniently forget that the US once stood against Britain, France and Israel in time of war (Suez/Sinai).
all my mods deleted !!!
in GR - General Mod Topics
Posted
Speaking as a professional software engineer I have to say the concept of this utility makes my blood run cold.
It's entirely possible the programme works solely as it is supposed to and I have no doubt the testers believe it is foolproof, but Windows is a notoriously unpredictable environment and testing is almost never as comprehensive as users believe it to be and what even professional testers believe to be the necessary level of testing seldom approaches the true level required (the best testing by the best companies in the industry is still in general a sick joke when compared to that undertaken by safety critical projects). Even assuming you have a comprehensive set of tests, can you say the complete test suite has been run on Win 95/98/98 SE/ME/NT 1-4/2K/XP/XP Pro? On clean and incremental installs of those OSs? On tailored installs? On machines with odd security setups? If you can't then your testing is inadequate.
Most users aren't qualified to answer a question of the type posed by this utility because they simply don't understand it at the level necessary to give an informed answer. And unless they can give an informed answer the moral, ethical and arguably legal responsibility for the consequences remain with the original coder and to some extent with those giving it webspace (including potentially the hosting ISP, so it might lead to punitive action from them).
If someone reports a problem, don't try to label him a liar, worry about what you may have missed, because we have another name for a programme with a destructive payload -- virus. The case of Robert Tappan Morris and the first Internet Worm is a case in point, RTM believed it would not have the chaotic effect it did. His peers delivered their judgement by resetting his user name to RTFM...
I intensely dislike the community's practice of using .EXE installers rather than archives such as ZIP, this is an example of precisely the kind of code that worries me and it's safe to say I will be avoiding the programme and any like it.
As a final damning thought, it wouldn't work on my install even if I had the offending mod, I rename all mod folders....