Project Reality - WIP Discussion

[rksl-rock 1300]

If they don't use CBA, or compensate for the use of CBA, then it will be incompatible with most decent mods.

....

Much like ACE then ;)

Seriously, if they want to create a totally stand alone total conversion mod then let them. Its their choice.

[Ssential 10]

Yup, I think they want to provide a consistent gameplay experience which is totally fine. It won't split the community up into hundreds of smaller communities with their own little mods trying to get enough people to play on their server with this and that mod and this and that gameplay rule etc.

[noubernou 77]

Much like ACE then ;)

Seriously, if they want to create a totally stand alone total conversion mod then let them. Its their choice.

Plenty of mods work with ACE and do not use CBA. :rolleyes:

The community developing and adhering to certain standards is a good thing, or have you never been part of serious software development before?

[rksl-rock 1300]

Plenty of mods work with ACE and do not use CBA. :rolleyes:

The community developing and adhering to certain standards is a good thing, or have you never been part of serious software development before?

LMAO. And plenty of mods dont work properly with ACE. But that's not the actual point. No one has the right to force them into using CBA etc. You have the right to ask them to support it but they don't have to listen you.

I've been involved in a lot of large scale professional software development projects at various levels. And having said that, with the benefit of my professional experience I can tell you that "adhering to certain standards" for the sake of "being seen to adhere" is not only counter productive and wasteful if it provides absolutely no benefit to the developer or end user. If CBA does not provide any benefit to PR why should they use it? To suit you?

Anyway this is way off topic. So I again repeat my earlier comment: If they don't want to use CBA or anything else then that is their choice.

(And it is a choice that the PR team have previously stated and explained.)

Leave them to it. Sit back and wait and see what happens.

[maddogx 13]

They want a closed, small, ecosystem, it is their decision, ...

If they don't want to use CBA or anything else then that is their choice.

Glad you both agree. :D

[dmarkwick 261]

Ladies, please, I ain't demanding or asking for anything. Only info, if PR is capable of running CBA alongside or not. Just a simple question.

It's not like the entire thing cannot be simply clicked on & off with a suitable launcher. I'm just curious & hopeful.

[rksl-rock 1300]

Glad you both agree. :D

Ah yes but context is everything. I didn't go onto suggest/imply they should support it anyway ;)

[ACPL Jon 68]

So? It's not forbidden.

If I'd do a great template for making great addons and someone would do just about the same (well, almost - CBA subtitute would be probably worse - due to shorter dev time, less testing, less resources and less experience) to be the base of a big and most probably great project like this (judging from unit renders & screenshots and the BF2 project), I'd be dissapointed too and I'd probably say "You could've went the other way" as well. Especially if it's doubling the work that have already been done and it's prolonging the development process. I guess CBA authors wouldn't have any problem with CBA being included in the PR release, but that's only a big bag of "could've been" at this moment.

It's not like it's a big deal, unless You go apeshit for anything that's not licking someone's ass.

Edited July 22, 2011 by JonPL

[rksl-rock 1300]

So? That's not forbidden.

If I'd do a great template for making great addons and someone would do just about the same (well, almost - CBA subtitute would be probably worse - due to shorter dev time, less testing, less resources and less experience) to be the base of a big and most probably great project like this (judging from unit renders & screenshots and the BF2 project), I'd be dissapointed too and I'd probably say "You could've went the other way" as well.

It's not like it's a big deal, unless You go apeshit for anything that's not licking someone's ass.

Oh no it not forbidden. But the obvious contradictions in Nou's statements do muddy the intent of his posts somewhat.

As for a CBA substitute. Personally the only part I've ever used is the extended eventhandlers. I could quite happily see the rest of CBA split off. And from what I've seen in other mods and from talking with other teams it is only ACE that seems to exploit the rest of CBA.

I've seen alternatives to Extended Eventhandlers and to a very limited degree some other functions in projects over the years. The problem is not one of development and testing. Its more one of community acceptance. CBA has a monopoly in most people's minds. Even if most of them don't use it properly they seem to think they need it, when they only use just one component.

[sickboy 13]

Har har har :) Perhaps you and others don't fully understand what CBA has to offer besides XEH?

It's not a monopoly but a more widely accepted system, everyone using their own system especially for the eventhandlers isn't useful (if you really need to have that explained, I can do so),

and if any of the alternatives were better, people would probably use that instead.

Besides, CBA gladly receives code donations / patches etc, and over the years it has received code and ideas from beyond the ACE team.

If only more people would be a little more open minded.

We actually felt we could give a little more to the community, than just pumping time and efforts into our own more specific Mod (ACE), but clearly that's not how it is perceived, at least not by you.

Funnily it sounds like you feel it's a competition or some kind of game of power; that's rather a sad and short-sighted look.

The choice to use it is up to mod teams - XEH's usefulness should be rather obvious, but there's a wealth of other features that CBA offers, and it can save time and efforts by reducing need to reinvent the wheel, or figuring out how to deal with many of the engine's quirks especially in MP.

Perhaps people can go back to the PR topic, I think they have stated many times over what they are planning and why,

IMO that should be respected.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Sickboy

[rksl-rock 1300]

Har har har :) Perhaps you and others don't fully understand what CBA has to offer besides XEH?

Maybe we don't. But the fact remains the same. 95% or higher of this community dont use anything more than the extended eventhandlers. Maybe that is because 'we' all dont understand what it can do. Much better documentation wouldn't hurt. Something aimed less at the "expert" and more at the average non-coder perhaps.

It's not a monopoly but a more widely accepted system, everyone using their own system especially for the eventhandlers isn't useful (if you really need to have that explained, I can do so),

and if any of the alternatives were better, people would probably use that instead.

Funnily it sounds like you feel it's a competition or some kind of game of power; that's rather a sad and short-sighted look.

I'm hoping that this is just getting lost in translation again, but probably not.

I don't see it as any form of competition. Just a 'quest' for the best, most efficient solution. As i said personally i don't have a need for anything other than Extended Event handlers. Nor do most of the people I deal with in this community. So I'd like to see just the EE split off into a more lightweight/low impact package.

In any case, we know your standpoints about both CBA and ACE.

I'd appreciate you telling me then. Recently a lot of people around here seem to know what i think and say without ever talking directly to me. Maybe if they did actually talk to me there would be less rumour and BS spread around.

Perhaps people can go back to the PR topic, I think they have stated many times over what they are planning and why.

Hey if the original poster had read that we could have saved a few pages. :p

But you are of course right this time.

Edited July 22, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
typo

[sickboy 13]

(Moderators; perhaps the conversation could be moved to the CBA thread)

Maybe we don't. But the fact remains the same. 95% or higher of this community dont use anything more than the extended eventhandlers. Maybe that is because 'we' all dont understand what it can do. Much better documentation wouldn't hurt. Something aimed less at the "expert" and more at the average non-coder perhaps.

Well in essence I don't believe CBA's purpose is to teach basic coding skills (though one could learn from the available code).

But if more helping hands would join the project, im sure we can achieve even that, but you see it always falls to a handful of people, you probably know that very well too - especially since you're one of the few who does help, writes guides and teaches etc.

Also there's a basic wiki outlining the features and possibilities of CBA, and all functions are documented within the sqf files, and is also available in the functions and macro index:

http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cca/wiki/CBA

http://dev-heaven.net/docs/cba/index.html

While CBA itself, ACE, ACRE etc mods are pretty much examples of how to use it.

So IMO there's quite some documentation, all functions are documented on how to use them etc.

Perhaps a more clear example of what kind of documentation you would be expecting would be useful,

while more helping hands certainly would be helpful as well ;)

I don't see it as any form of competition. Just a 'quest' for the best, most efficient solution. As i said personally i don't have a need for anything other than Extended Event handlers. Nor do most of the people I deal with in this community. So I'd like to see just the EE split off into a more lightweight/low impact package.

XEH is already fully usable standalone, has always been the case too.

I too believe XEH is the most important feature, but there's a wealth of other things available too, which I personally wouldn't wanna miss :)

I'd appreciate you telling me then. Recently a lot of people around here seem to know what i think and say without ever talking directly to me. Maybe if they did actually talk to me there would be less rumour and BS spread around.

I can feel what you're saying and I agree too, it was incorrect of me to mention it like this and have already removed it.

I was basing my opinion on how you seem to jump on CBA/ACE topics when they come up :) And the jokes / references you make ref ACE.

But it's not much more than under-belly feelings.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Sickboy

[JdB 151]

where the MTP is very faded and is affected by the laundry system and useage out there?

I found this an interesting remark, as it is something that has always bothered, especially with addons developed by community members. The clothing on most addons looks like it just came out of the wrappings, judging by the screenshots of PR:A2, it's like that in this mod as well. Vehicles are dirty and worn down, and soldiers look like they just joined the army ... Not a show stopper obviously, but I do feel that it's a slight step down on the "Reality" ladder imo.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Lets just wait again a little bit longer and see how good or bad the CO:PR mod will introduce itself to all players in CO! Maybe we will see a real ingame gameplay trailer sooner or later?

[rksl-rock 1300]

@ Craig/UKForce sorry for the ongoing disruption but you never know this discussion might finally put an end to the entire PR/CBA thing :P

Well in essence I don't believe CBA's purpose is to teach basic coding skills (though one could learn from the available code).

But if more helping hands would join the project, im sure we can achieve even that, but you see it always falls to a handful of people, you probably know that very well too - especially since you're one of the few who does help, writes guides and teaches etc.

I wasn't suggesting it should teach basic coding. I was suggesting that the documentation needs to be far more accessible to the average person. That can be accomplished in various ways but the easiest is to write/add tutorials that are written in very simple easily translatable English. The use of very complex high level technical language sounds 'impressive' and 'important' but it's incredibly hard for the average newbie modder (and that is the majority) to understand. Let alone the rubbish that apps like google translate make of it. The Ease of understanding and its application is always going to be the biggest hurdle of the acceptance of any tool.

While CBA itself, ACE, ACRE etc mods are pretty much examples of how to use it.

All of which, you have to admit are very complex examples to try to learn from.

But perhaps we should continue that in the CBA thread :)

We've already had this conversation several times over the years haven't we. I think if you go look way back in that thread your will see some of my posts asking for better documentation. Not to mention other people asking for the same too.

XEH is already fully usable standalone, has always been the case too.

I too believe XEH is the most important feature, but there's a wealth of other things available too, which I personally wouldn't wanna miss :)

But its not available as a separate download. So people just down load CBA and live with the impact of the other content without ever knowing what it does.

I can feel what you're saying and I agree too, it was incorrect of me to mention it like this and already have removed it.

I was basing my opinion on how you seem to jump on CBA/ACE topics when they come up :) And the jokes / references you make ref ACE.

But it's not much more than under-belly feelings.

Go back and actually read what I say about ACE/CBA. I'd suggest your prejudices are giving your that view. While I have criticised ACE's lack of compatibility with other mods I've also gone to great lengths to explain that my issue is less with ACE mod itself but more with the attitude of some of it contributors and its fan base ("one 'mod' to bind them all"?). And I've repeatedly asked for more accessibility and compatibility. Hardly a sustained assault upon ACE and CBA is it.

Edited July 22, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[ACPL Jon 68]

gameplay trailer? duh.

They were supposed to release in July (did I missed something?) :P

Edited July 22, 2011 by JonPL

[dmarkwick 261]

Fuggedaboudit.

[slatts 1978]

didnt see if it was asked/answered

but does the Scimitar 2 carry troops? looks like it to me

[road runner 4344]

Scimitar only has a crew of 3, driver, Gunner and Commander ;)

[Guest]

Slatts:

UK_Force said: "...There are a number of reasons for this, better mine blast protection, ability to carry 2 dismounts in the rear, new chassis to replace the aging ones in Afghan etc, etc...."

Source: http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f509-mini-updates-team/98701-11-terrains-scimitar-2-a.html

[rksl-rock 1300]

Scimitar only has a crew of 3, driver, Gunner and Commander ;)

Thats the Scimiter 1. PR are making the latest Scimiter 2 which is based of the Spartan APC. That used to carry 3 crew and 4 infantry. With the addition of the turret and the move to the CVR(T) role I'm interested in the answer to Slatts question too.

[slatts 1978]

looking at the picture from the rear it looks like it has a ramp/door, but with the size of the turret compared to the rear of the main body, it looks like it would only have space for 2 soldiers lol if any that is

[da12thMonkey 1943]

The new Spartans our lads built as a counterpart to the Scimitar 2s have been reduced to seating for only 2 dismounts instead of 4.

I've not had the chance to look around the Scimitar 2 but I'd be surprised if the available space in the back is for seats from what I've seen of the Spartans.

[-Eddie- 10]

So is the Scimitar 2s capacity basically to pick up battlefield casualties/other injured crew or can they carry a small recce team as dismounts?

[sickboy 13]

I still think the discussion should be moved to the CBA thread, but will leave that up to the mods.

I wasn't suggestion it should teach basic coding. I was suggesting that the documentation needs to be far more accessible to the average person. That can be accomplished in various

ways but the easiest is to write/add tutorials that are written in very simple easily translatable English. The use of very complex high level technical language sounds 'impressive' and 'important' but

it's incredibly hard for the average newbie modder (and that is the majority) to understand. Let alone the rubbish that apps like google translate make of it. The Ease of understanding and its application

is always going to be the biggest hurdle of the acceptance of any tool.

IMO the documentation should be sufficient for most scripters, especially those who release addons.

Additionally, how many people have learned what they know today, by scripting tutorials delivered with projects?

I'd say most people have learned by doing (experimentation etc), by looking at how others did it, and by evaluating the (often) rudementary documentation that is available. That's at least the case for myself, and im not a schooled programmer either.

But sure, I agree that tutorials in simple easily translatable English could be beneficial, but again I would like to point out that people could assist, like you would supplement a wiki.

But, that is a larger issue, isn't it? Take for example recent complaints about the AllInOneConfig being hardly accessible from the Dev-Heaven site, someone posts links to a forum where they are attached,

but it crosses no-ones mind to put it on the biki, so I did. That's the mostly passive community one has to deal with :) And this is but one out of plenty of examples.

Also, the CBA functions are documented in the same manner as the BIS functions (also accessible from the BIS Functions module help dialog), with additional system documentation on the wiki (and delivered for offline reading in the CBA package).

I don't see BIS function tutorials (but there is documentation for some of the BIS modules, like there is also for CBA and ACE features) :) And mind you, im comparing a commercial product you paid for, with a free community project (and then a project that's supposed to be co-developed by the community).

All of which, you have to admit are very complex examples to try to learn from.

Agreed.

We've already had this conversation several times over the years haven't we. I think if you go look way back in that thread your will see some of my posts asking for better documentation. Not to mention other people asking for the same too.

We've provided documentation/assistance upon request, but I'd have to dig for the more generic tutorial/documentation requests.

If any specific questions are left open, please feel free to drop them in the CBA thread or the issue tracker, and i'll gladly respond.

But its not available as a separate download. So people just down load CBA and live with the impact of the other content without ever knowing what it does.

I don't see how that is relevant.

We see CBA as a package and want to release it and support it as such.

But, if you or anyone else wants to use XEH seperately, you can. To me that seems what really matters.

On a side note, since XEH has been part of the CBA modfolder, a lot less issues due to old versions laying around inside other (3rd party) modfolders have occured.

And TBH there is little overhead if you decide not to use the rest of CBA.

Go back and actually read what I say about ACE/CBA. I'd suggest your prejudices are giving your that view. While I have criticised ACE's lack of compatibility with other mods I've also gone to great

lengths to explain that my issue is less with ACE mod itself but more with the attitude of some of it contributors and its fan base ("one 'mod' to bind them all"?). And I've repeatedly asked for more

accessibility and compatibility. Hardly a sustained assault upon ACE and CBA is it.

IMO we cannot be held accountable for our fans, and also not how individual devs or contributors behave or what they write, they are individuals like any other.

I'd claim things have improved over time too, and we've tried to mitigate it as well.

ACE mod motto is certainly not "one mod to bind them all".

Re compatibility:

To be honest, ACE is IMO rather a compatible mod. It has also evolved over time, incl compatibility.

The most important part of compatibility with other mods: Shareable eventhandlers, and fully respecting and sticking to the BIS config inheritance tree, are both fully covered.

We have also tried to design (or later refactor) the features to work with not just BIS/ACE classes, but with others too - at least for as far as that is possible, and for where other mods adhere to the bis config tree etc. - not something weird to expect - as it is basically the foundation of compatibility.

Some things simply aren't possible to work out of the box with custom addons, with various (mostly technical) reasons.

Mostly when people speak about compatibility (or incompatibility) with ACE, it is about specific ACE custom features not working (completely or not as intended) with their custom addons.

Or e.g to give units/vehicles ACE weapon assets.

It is simply not possible to make everything work on everything out of the box, some features require specific scripts for specific vehicles and others need additional config parameters or model properties. (I think not unlike your own cargo system)

And IMO not everything has to be either, ACE has an identity, goals, scope, vision, just like any other Mod. Still we strive for a high level of compatibility.

Generally that seems to be accepted as normal (and defended by many), but when it comes to ACE it seems to be a problem, even though many features and most custom addons work out of the box with ACE, while we try to support and improve compatibility as well.

At the same time you seem to be a fan of and supporter of a mod who has already stated that they want a closed system, without compatibility (mind you, I don't have anything against that approach, it's their choice), and seem to resist where people ask for improved compatibility.

Now what is it gonna be, pro compatibility or against compatibility? Or is it depending on the people behind the mod, or what they focus on?

Predjuce/bias might not just be occuring on my end.

In any case, CBA stands seperate from ACE, even though much code comes from ACE authors, there's plenty of others in there too, and there could be more of that if people would be more willing to assist/donate.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Sickboy