Automatic Mod Downloading

[[aps]gnat 28]

Has to be integrated into the game. I'm sick of those external over-extremely complicated launchers - and im not a beginner.

Same.

[icewindo 29]

Gnat;2387410']Same.

PlayWithSix is allready pretty simple imo, but still I'd also prefer a native implementation. Who knows, maybe BIS could hook up with SIX and implement a ingame solution using their backend. Even less work for BIS, plus revenue for SIX.

[Wolfstriked 11]

Having to enable and disable mods myself just sucks and was why I gave up quickly on A2's multiplayer scene.Last night I gave up on trying to find servers that I wanted to play on and just went with whatever let me join.Weird that they have no plans to really flesh out multiplayer ease.Just have the game download all the mods the server is running at a very slow pace.Once downloaded onto ones HD though why can't the game disable it when a server says denied???

[Bashka_IF 1]

is there Issue Tracker Entry for this ?

[eggyolk47 10]

Making the update as smooth as possible and to not run into a server issue is the key to making a great game

[adanteh 58]

PlayWithSix is allready pretty simple imo, but still I'd also prefer a native implementation. Who knows, maybe BIS could hook up with SIX and implement a ingame solution using their backend. Even less work for BIS, plus revenue for SIX.

Yes, except the interface of PlayWithSix doesn't make any sense at all. Arrows pointing in the wrong directions, sliders that you can't actually slide. Silly popups. Slow movements. Weird menus. And that's just the program. The mod system is also quite weird. A complete lack of filters, tags, dependencies, descriptions. Mods that are missing (And have to be manually added), aren't updated properly. You name it. It needs A LOT of work. And seeing it already had a lot of work, I doubt we'll actually get a really good program. With an infrastructure like this Arma is never going to be a game that will be 'easy' to play. And I don't mean 'easy' in the way of doing 360 no-scope headshots wherever you go, but that it's a pain in the ass to configure, control, modify and PLAY! (Different menus in every mission file. Different systems for groups. Only pilot flying on some servers. Everyone can fly in other servers. Weird AI automated systems in one server, complete chaos and destruction on other servers. Not even talking about good menus, overviews and the likes.

I mean... Someone out of my usual group of players has a server. They allow some mods. How can I know this? Well he told me. That's currently the only way I know off. How do I install those mods? Well, I have to download them myself on Armaholic, make sure I keep updating them manually and then using Arma II Launcher or so to boot it. Six Launcher doesn't support lots of local mods (And again, complete lack of filters there)... But for a mod like AllinArma I'm more or less forced to use PlaywithSix.

This is the number one thing Arma needs: A good infrastructure. Good servers (With good settings), a good server browser (Try and create some order in this complete chaos of random mission files and random servers, where I have no idea what I'm joining, when I'm joining something and not just mod support, but a good way to use mods for everyone.

inb4 "Die-hard Arma vets" who tell me to stop wanting simple things, because if I want simple things I should go back to CoD (Lolwut).

Gameplay with lots of depth and options, doesn't mean everything around it has to be a hell.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Yes, except the interface of PlayWithSix doesn't make any sense at all. Arrows pointing in the wrong directions, sliders that you can't actually slide. Silly popups. Slow movements. Weird menus. And that's just the program.

Agree, again.

Not at all intuitive. But the author has heard this feedback from me before.

The principle and general background mechanics / implementation of PwS is GREAT, just the GUI and user messaging leaves me cold.

In general, nothing wrong with ArmA2/3's GUI design ..... combine and we might get close.

[chrisb 196]

Yes, SU was better than PWS, it was easy to get around..

[kremator 1064]

It needs to be idiot-proof ... and there are a lot of idiots around (just kidding!)

Seriously we do need something that takes ANY difficulty out of it. If you granny can't use it immediately, it don't work.

We need to keep shouting until BIS realises that we need AUTODOWNLOADING in game !

[sickboy 13]

I've never understood (and probably will never) why such info can only be really found in some random forum thread, instead of the feedback and issue tracker.

As a dedicated developer it has always frustrated the hell out of me. "Just build better software" they say, well that's easily said..

Yes, except the interface of PlayWithSix doesn't make any sense at all.

Makes pretty good sense: From top to bottom: Social, Game, Mod, Server, Launch/Play. Seems to be a very natural order tbh?

However we're pretty aware of the limitations of the design and already are working on the next.

Arrows pointing in the wrong directions, sliders that you can't actually slide.

Not sure what you mean.

Okay there's maybe the SP/MP switch that gives the impression it's a slider.

Also, are you saying the Arrows should point into opposite direction, basically reverse the implementation?

Silly popups

Like which?

Slow movements

Working on performance but usually the issue is interfeiring client side applications. http://getsatisfaction.withsix.com/withsix/topics/graphics_related_utilities_can_cause_graphical_corruption_crash_on_startup_or_performance_issues

Weird menus

What does that mean, and what menus?

The mod system is also quite weird. A complete lack of filters, tags, dependencies, descriptions.

Pardon? Filter by name is available atm. Tags are available as Categories atm, and the mods are grouped per Category.

Dependencies have been supported from the very start. Descriptions too.

Have a look at what data we have available: http://play.withsix.com/mods

We're also making major advancements:

- The very crude and basic "Add Mod" section will soon be replaced so all data can be accessed in all it's glory. As part of the UI Overhaul pt2; Collections and Libraries.

- Synq: http://play.withsix.com/posts/97-introducing-codename-synq-our-new-distribution-tech

- Paq: http://play.withsix.com/posts/98-introducing-codename-paq-the-synq-package-and-collection-index

Mods that are missing (And have to be manually added)

Sorry but you are blaming us for not hosting every content that is out there promptly?

Do you have any clue about the time, effort and costs that are involved here?

If you want a mod added or updated, we're available for requests at http://getsatisfaction.withsix.com/withsix/topics/mod_update_or_addition_requests_pt2

With Synq we hope authors will eventually add and update their own content.

aren't updated properly.

Any examples? I'm pretty sure such situations are very minimal, and immediately corrected on report.

Six Launcher doesn't support lots of local mods (And again, complete lack of filters there)

Are you referring to Play withSIX? SIX Launcher is an old temporary launcher we used very shortly.

In any case we support any local mod, the only problem was with AllInArma that mods are locked to games, so if you try to load a mod that PwS knows as ARMA2, you couldn't select them on ARMA3. This is already supported in build 458.

You name it. It needs A LOT of work. And seeing it already had a lot of work, I doubt we'll actually get a really good program.

We have made great progress (http://play.withsix.com/changelog) through the years but have a lot to take care of, give us a little credit for providing all these services and content for free.

Play withSIX is not even a year old. Arm-chair feedback and finger pointing is easy.

With Synq and Paq nearing completion, we enter the next level, and soon will also release new Custom Repository and Dedicated Server tools, also available on Linux.

Much of your other complaints are not within the scope of our software, and really just complaints about the game / situation.

---------- Post added at 11:16 ---------- Previous post was at 11:10 ----------

Gnat;2388052']Not at all intuitive. But the author has heard this feedback from me before.

The principle and general background mechanics / implementation of PwS is GREAT' date=' just the GUI and user messaging leaves me cold.[/quote']

I think usability and UI are pretty subjective and personal. Some people will like it, some people will not. There is IMO no real way to make it perfect for everyone.

Surely there can be obvious design flaws, and limitations, and we will do our best to improve where-ever we can.

Some really specific feedback and examples could definitely help also.

Stating it is 'bad' is one thing and easy, but pointing out how to do it better, there is a real challenge ;)

I'm glad you do like the principle and general background mechanics. Have you checked recently btw?

---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

It needs to be idiot-proof ... and there are a lot of idiots around (just kidding!)

Seriously we do need something that takes ANY difficulty out of it. If you granny can't use it immediately, it don't work.

Because your granny is a real target of the software, and the audience that plays games, and ARMA 2/3 in particular?

Edited May 6, 2013 by Sickboy

[[aps]gnat 28]

I think usability and UI are pretty subjective and personal.

Sure is, but a little different if more than a few are saying the same.

There is IMO no real way to make it perfect for everyone.

Not expecting perfect. Perfect is impossible anyway. When it's being done for free, can't reasonably expect more.

This thread is about the "next" version or generation.

Surely there can be obvious design flaws, and limitations, and we will do our best to improve where-ever we can.

Some really specific feedback and examples could definitely help also.

Stating it is 'bad' is one thing and easy, but pointing out how to do it better, there is a real challenge ;)

Its a GUI. It IS hard to change a GUI because its birthed right back at the very start of the project. Changing/evolving a GUI can take a huge amount of work.

And 1000's of words/suggestions in a forum or a bug catcher won't effectively convey concerns and wants.

I learnt that much in Software Engineering before I dropped out ;)

I'm glad you do like the principle and general background mechanics. Have you checked recently btw?

Sure ... updated again. Some of the windows ....

[sickboy 13]

Thanks Gnat.

Sure is, but a little different if more than a few are saying the same.

We get plenty of positive comments too, the problem is that the voice of negativity is a lot louder than the voice of positivity ;-)

The first Window - perfectly fine, whats wrong with it?

All the other Windows and issues are a one time thing, as the Changelog states a major upgrade was required, it is not something we choose freely, but is a technical necessity.

I'm pretty sure we already touched this before. It's about 6 months or longer ago since we needed that, normally we have Minor upgrade types which remember the paths, and don't show Sorry/ThankYou.

Funny coincidence :) (A Major upgrade type is like Microsoft Office 2010 -> 2013. It doesn't use the 2010 location to install 2013 either, you'll have to manually adjust it).

Regarding the shortcut, yes we had to change exe names, and yes that means if you had manually created shortcuts, that these are now invalid, not sure what you expect us to do about it.

(Changing the exe name was a hard decision and not something you should expect happening again. We intentionally did it in the Preview phase).

I'm sorry but some things are simply not technically or financially feasable. We are also subject to limitations of systems, OS, MSI and tools etc. Just like anyone else.

I thought we were talking about the usability of the app itself? Not about the install or major upgrade process which occurs like once or twice in a lifetime.

To me it's like saying a program is shit because you don't like the logo; while you might not like the logo, I don't think you can qualify it as fair to judge a program just on it's logo :)

Edited May 6, 2013 by Sickboy

[[aps]gnat 28]

The first Window - perfectly fine, whats wrong with it?

Nothing, just proving source.

I thought we were talking about the usability of the app itself? Not about the install or major upgrade process which occurs like once or twice in a lifetime.

Once or twice? I get those screens ALL the time.

To me it's like saying a program is shit because you don't like the logo; while you might not like the logo, I don't think you can qualify it as fair to judge a program just on it's logo :)

Logo? You don't interact with a logo. A GUI is the WHOLE front end the bit us humans have to use.

I'm not saying is shit. We're covering ground done before in your threads. I'm not being drawn into a lynching that isn't actually happening. PwS is well liked. It fills a big gap.

A gap this thread is trying to discuss.

*done*

[sickboy 13]

Gnat;2389387']Nothing' date=' just proving source.[/quote']Understood.

Once or twice? I get those screens ALL the time.

Perhaps you get that impression because you use the software infrequently, not sure.

Let me hash out the install process bulletpoints:

- Configuration files removal is only shown on Uninstallation

- Sorry dialog is only shown on Uninstallation

- ThankYou dialog is only shown on a clean Reinstall

- Installation Path is remembered on minor upgrades, which is the standard upgrade type applied to 99% of the updates.

Normally, Minor Upgrade types are performed on update. Meaning Installation Path is remembered, Sorry dialog doesn't show, ThankYou doesn't show, Configuration removal doesn't show.

Incidentally, Major Upgrade types are performed on update. This performs an Uninstall, and a Reinstall. Meaning Installation Path is NOT remembered, Sorry and ThankYou dialogs show and Configuration Removal shows.

Somewhat annoying, I agree, but hardly deal breaking??

Logo? You don't interact with a logo. A GUI is the WHOLE front end the bit us humans have to use.

You're referring to the installer of the software, especially the major upgrade types that are incidental, not the GUI, hence my comparison with the logo.

Mind you, that really happens (people judging the whole software just based on logo :))

A gap this thread is trying to discuss.

Yes sorry for jumping onto the discussion when-ever I feel unfairly treated.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Sickboy

[Bravo_Two_Zeroq 10]

I think usability and UI are pretty subjective and personal. Some people will like it, some people will not. There is IMO no real way to make it perfect for everyone.

Surely there can be obvious design flaws, and limitations, and we will do our best to improve where-ever we can.

Although I greatly appreciate the work and the initiative behind Six, I'm afraid this statement is ill-argumentated and one of the common misconceptions in the field of usability engineering. I don't feel like going into this matter now and here since a) it's beautiful weather b) I don't know you would care and c) nobody ever won an argument over the internet, but if you're interested you're always welcome to search for "usability analysis", "usability engineering" or "cognitive modelling".

Just ask yourself this question: how do you think that Microsoft, Google or Apple design their UI and how much money do you think they spent on this (read: research and development time)?

I'm not expecting a community initiative like Six has the resources (being time and/or knowledge) to develop the UI as a large software company would do, and I'm not saying the design is bad either, but there is room for improvement and there is more to it than just being a subjective matter of individuals.

[sickboy 13]

Although I greatly appreciate the work and the initiative behind Six, I'm afraid this statement is ill-argumentated and one of the common misconceptions in the field of usability engineering. I don't feel like going into this matter now and here since a) it's beautiful weather b) I don't know you would care and c) nobody ever won an argument over the internet, but if you're interested you're always welcome to search for "usability analysis", "usability engineering" or "cognitive modelling".

Just ask yourself this question: how do you think that Microsoft, Google or Apple design their UI and how much money do you think they spent on this (read: research and development time)?

I'm not expecting a community initiative like Six has the resources (being time and/or knowledge) to develop the UI as a large software company would do, and I'm not saying the design is bad either, but there is room for improvement and there is more to it than just being a subjective matter of individuals.

Thanks, I see your points, but imo doesn't negate that a lot is left to preference.

I know plenty of people that don't like Windows 8 design/usability, Ribbon (since Office 2007), Office 2013 interface, Visual Studio 2012 interface, and so forth.

Clearly multi-billion dollar companies cannot make perfect UI that fits everyone and everyone enjoys it.

Also because much of it is based on what you're used to, I think it is part of the trick of binding customers to you actually ;)

The same goes for products from Adobe, Google, anywhere anything really.

Anyway, we'll read up and try to improve as ever :)

Edited May 6, 2013 by Sickboy

[paragraphic l 2]

Be sure to direct UI and usability issues to me and not Sickboy.

As a graphical designer I have no theoretical background in software design and am learning while we go.

Now the issues with the arrows pointing in the wrong direction is new to me, but will disappear with the improved GUI anyways.

Usability is indeed more research than it is preference, and with the limited resources we have we do gather information and feedback on the design decisions. But we have also noticed that most negative feedback we have had so far was due to comfort with known interactions and reluctance to investigate a new design.

We are learning from all expressed interactions and improving our vision of the users and their usage. Now we will need some more trial and error, but that is also part of the reason why we are still in a preview stage.

Be sure that our intend is to make an awesome tool.

Edited May 6, 2013 by ParaGraphic L

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Have you guys considered making the UI customizable? CSS based perhaps? That'd be perfect at this point. So if someone doesn't like the UI, they can go find one they like better, or make it themselves.

Also, for the upgrade harassment issues that Gnat was whining about, why not make a separate installation executable for major upgrades that tailors it's dialog to that specific situation?

[sickboy 13]

Have you guys considered making the UI customizable? CSS based perhaps? That'd be perfect at this point. So if someone doesn't like the UI, they can go find one they like better, or make it themselves.

Interesting thought but not too feasable perhaps, also I think especially last years you're less and less able to customize applications, for a reason.

I don't think everyone having their very custom personal experience is beneficial to anyone :) (Sounds like pretty messy support too).

Instead we look at improving the general experience and at least will allow theming at some point so you can choose light or dark theme.

Adjusting UI is actually quite simple and does not require you to restart your application from scratch, at least in WPF/MVVM practice :)

It really just is about finding the right approach that works for the use cases and users.

Also we're working on a plugin API, to build custom features that you can share with others, those would have their own UI elements but with the general design/theme.

Anyway, will discuss it with the team anyway :)

Also, for the upgrade harassment issues that Gnat was whining about, why not make a separate installation executable for major upgrades that tailors it's dialog to that specific situation?

We're not willing to invest more time and effort in this area at this time. We feel it is more than adequate as is, especially considering the very low frequency of Major Upgrades.

While some of the installer issues might be annoying at times, on the whole it is really very minor imo, and has improved a lot already.

If anything, eventually, we hope to end up with no installer at all, we're quite close already to that goal.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Sickboy

[RSF TheCapulet 59]

Interesting thought but not too feasable perhaps, also I think especially last years you're less and less able to customize applications, for a reason.

I don't think everyone having their very custom personal experience is beneficial to anyone :) (Sounds like pretty messy support too).

Instead we look at improving the general experience and at least will allow theming at some point so you can choose light or dark theme.

Adjusting UI is actually quite simple and does not require you to restart your application from scratch, at least in WPF/MVVM practice :)

It really just is about finding the right approach that works for the use cases and users.

Also we're working on a plugin API, to build custom features that you can share with others, those would have their own UI elements but with the general design/theme.

Anyway, will discuss it with the team anyway :)

Was more of a selfish suggestion anyways, since it'd mean I could edit some stuff myself. heh. Really looking forward to plugins though. Great work!

We're not willing to invest more time and effort in this area at this time. We feel it is more than adequate as is, especially considering the very low frequency of Major Upgrades.

While some of the installer issues might be annoying at times, on the whole it is really very minor imo, and has improved a lot already.

If anything, eventually, we hope to end up with no installer at all, we're quite close already to that goal.

I take that to mean a background updating service, since it'd be impossible to update the main files while they're in use? (I assume that's the need for a new installer for major upgrades)

[doveman 7]

I couldn't find any request for this on the ArmA III Alpha feedback site so I've created one now, so please vote for it if you'd like to see it implemented http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9217

[tonygrunt 10]

I couldn't find any request for this on the ArmA III Alpha feedback site so I've created one now, so please vote for it if you'd like to see it implemented http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9217

Similar feature requests 8310, 7845 and 6740 were closed as duplicate of 6428.

I suggest adding a note there as your feature request might not last long.

[doveman 7]

Similar feature requests 8310, 7845 and 6740 were closed as duplicate of 6428.

I suggest adding a note there as your feature request might not last long.

Thanks, I tried searching on Automatic mod and a couple of other phrases and didn't find those. I'll add a note to 6428 as you suggest.

[kamaradski 10]

Let me know when a new (simpler) GUI is implemented and i might re-install to give it another go.

Concept is great !! However i cant get my head around this GUI.

Also don't have time to spend hours on researching how to use this piece of software, so simple GUI design and intuative uasability is for me apperant to have.

Anyway guy's i have seen lots of improvement already so keep it up :)

[sickboy 13]

@kamaradski; which did you try? The old deprecated SIX Launcher/Updater, or the Play withSIX?

In any case we're working hard on pws2 concept too.

---------- Post added at 15:37 ---------- Previous post was at 15:36 ----------

I couldn't find any request for this on the ArmA III Alpha feedback site so I've created one now, so please vote for it if you'd like to see it implemented http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=9217

You might see this soon in PwS also, we've basically got all we need for it, just need to allot the time :)