Where is the Arma3 Bible?

[sirscorpion 10]

TL: DR: Arma3 needs a code among Mod makers to ensure Mod compatibility in a PVP competitive environment while maintaining realism in settings. Please show your support if you like this Idea.

here we go!

Well not really a Bible per say, more of a CODIX for modding. I have lurked around for quite some time with a few posts here and there, used all the mods etc. but never have I seen such a thing.

ARMA is not an RPG per say, But in order for it to thrive in Modern game industry, it needs to be competitive and for that to happen it needs to be Balanced. For it to be Balanced and use all of the mods there needs to be a code amongst mod makers to how a mod needs to be what rules does it apply to making a mod that is Compatible with other Mods in a PVP environment.

During my time in ARMA2 I found all mods to be vastly different More so in Vehicles, Aircraft, and Explosive munitions and Armor Values. My Experience of the inner workings of Mods is limited but I will try to explain as best of my understanding.

Here is my proposal, I warn you this borders on the complex side with some analysis from game design point of view, and please correct me if such a thing does exist:

The ARMA MOD BALANCE CODE (CODEX,BIBLE) Template, this is to be filled out and edited based on the dissection and mod user preferences:

To make it simple, and as I looked and used Gigabytes of modes a person can classify the mods into 3 Major Category’s.

The Vanilla: Modes Marked with “CODEX Vâ€: are modes that are similar to the Base game, OR provide No significant balance changes “non regulation skins for example†such items need to adhere with whats in the game and be fair and balanced in comparison to whats in the Vanilla game. Using game explosive power for example as a benchmark, or Speed of jets. A Vanilla jet will be as fast as the one in game, comparative load-out and destructive power. Armor will have the same Values etc.

The Fantasy Modes: Modes marked with “CODEX Fâ€: unlimited creativity here, you know the mods I am talking about, Zombies, Flying Mech robots, etc.

The Simulation Mods: Modes Marked with “CODEX Sâ€: this one is a Big one. And the toughest one to call, every one has a point of View, to what is realistic and what is Balanced we can split this into sub categories at the expense of the games compatibility in PVP environments. I believe that Real battlefield is balanced, (with limited Details, Every weapon system has a counter there is no Omni weapon, all are venerable in a modern combat environment in a symmetrical warfare setting, Asymmetrical warfare on the other hand is balanced through political and Geopolitical factorsâ€

So Breaking down what makes a weapon system:

1.Canon: the setting/environment/world of where all of the “CODEX Simulation†or “CS†fits in, Example ACE mod has a canon which is different from from Vanilla. By that it means that resting a weapon makes as much logic as using sand bags, or using a crew serviced weapon or using ACE advanced artillery tools.

ACE Canon also means that weapons have complex firing process, example is AT weapons Shoulder>Safe>Aim>Calibrate> Clear Back-blast>Fire. That same complex process then needs to be applied to all weapon systems, a 6 step process means that we have a high fidelity weapon systems in the “CS†world. So in turn an AH64D should Have no less than “X†steps for an engagement. Example

an AH64D with “CS†canon = Aim>Master Arm>Lase target> Box> Clear with pilot> fire.

There for a Canon Base Line needs to be established, what I felt from ACE and other realism mods is there is a balance between Full fidelity, and Arcade, the number I come around with is around 60% of the engagement process is Simulated. But this is my point of view.

2. Scale: the scale of realism from a technical point of view of which the CS Item will behave in comparison to its Real life counterpart. 100% Means that an M1A2 Tanks is 1:1 scale, armor, wight, gun munition looks, sound, wight, internal working, fuel consumption, Mean time between Breakdown,service effect on performance etc, 100% cant be achieved even on level D military grade 20-30 million simulators with full access to source code and classified OEM data “around 96% is best you can getâ€

So what is the scale that we have now in something Like ACE or the really pro mods out there is around 35-40% of the real thing. “in comparison “DCS A10†has 50-65% fidelityâ€

The scaling system Parameters are:

10% Physical Appearance: looks, details, skins, camouflage patterns, interiors, Interaction with Hatches , switches, equipment, screens and associated sounds.

10% Base Physical Performance: Armor values Equivalent to RAH, compartmental or subsystem venerability, speed,acceleration,deceleration, wight, Interaction with environment “tank hit tree, tree crushâ€, suspension, heat signature, sounds.

10% weapons and systems: associated weapons systems “Automated/ manual range finders, thermal day/night/black/white/NV. Tracking and boxing systems. Weapons performance “range penetration, explosive radius, Ammunition types/count. Sub system Weapons “EX. coaxial gun†and all the associated user machine interface and sounds.

10% Operational process: flight model, driving model, Driver tools and process “breaks, altitude†gunner and commander processes tools, firing procedures and complexity.

10% secondary subsystems: Extra armor “ERA†Slat armor, Smoke launchers, Repair tools and interactions, Active Armor systems, IRR, RWR, IFF, ECM, Radar detectors and operation.

The other 50% in simulation delve deeper into those category no need to go into them yet.

This is what I can come up with and narrow down, While the canon is a subjective topic to what the world is, and I am sure that it will be dynamic and that’s fine as the canon grows it WILL show us what modes and addons become obsolete and need an upgrade. It will Also show us where do we have a imbalance hole in the canon “example an A10 flying without an SPGAA on Opfor to counter it on the proper scaleâ€

On the Scale, its more of a fixed position, we need to understand the canon to put a proper scale, what is max speed? Do tank guns fire at the full range or do we scale it to 60%?

But having that will naturally equalize to a balanced battlefield, if Cost and quality is considered. This helps mission makers to use a greater verity of tools in realistic application with equal level of immersion, this also improves quality control over the mods and ad dons, better compatibility. If this generates interest I will create a Scale system which I hope others might translate into any of the mod tracking websites to act as a guide and an open source of information on what you want to make and how should it behave.

I look foreword to your comments, excuse my English its not my first or 2nd language.

SirScorpion

[Tonci87 163]

I understand your generall Idea, but I think it worked mostly fine in Arma 2. I don't see the need to introduce a Codex. But I'm not a modder, maybe this would make things easier for them...or harder

[noubernou 77]

Or we could say "screw balance" and just make things realistic? That seems a better idea.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Or we could say "screw balance" and just make things realistic? That seems a better idea.

I think he means standardizing config values sich as armor, damage etc. So if someone makes an M1A1 it would have the same values as the default one, and if someone makes a T55 its armor and damage would be realisticly proportional to that. With different standards for vanilla, fantasy and realistic. Seems like a good idea to me.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Well, that's the thing with realism, it has to fit the scale. Do we base it off real world specs or fit it to the ArmAversum? 1 foot in the real world isn't necessarily 1 foot in the ArmAversum.

If you try and base a system off of real world specs, then that means everything has to be based off real world specs. You'd need 1:1 maps, etc.

But if you try and base a system off of fictional specs, you run the very real chance of either making things crazy, or pissing off both the realism and the arcade style players.

[sirscorpion 10]

I think he means standardizing config values sich as armor, damage etc. So if someone makes an M1A1 it would have the same values as the default one, and if someone makes a T55 its armor and damage would be realisticly proportional to that. With different standards for vanilla, fantasy and realistic. Seems like a good idea to me.

Exactly, the problem is in Arma2, and depending the mod makers "realistic is not a fixed line" there for IF you have a realistic T55 with a 90% fidelity existing with an M1A2 with 10% fidelity, then Both are fantasy (not realistic or balanced) this is a higher issue with PVP than it is with SP.

having a standard to what Realistic is or at minimum a base line will give you realism and therefor balance

---------- Post added at 08:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 AM ----------

Well, that's the thing with realism, it has to fit the scale. Do we base it off real world specs or fit it to the ArmAversum?

agree with you 100%, what is an acceptable scale? do all tools scale in the same amount?

example if a jet needs to fly at 60% of its max speed, does that mean a rifle needs 60% of its range? imo no.

but in the end this is a fundamental question we need to answer, and agree on.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

The thing is, how could the standards be enforced? I'm all for standardizing addons based upon a 3 tier system, as long as we could get a group/committee together to come up with the standards to be implemented (IMHO the group should be composed of addon makers, terrain makers, and certain others who either have access to information the others don't, or have the spare time needed to gather all the data to be compiled.)

But once you come up with the system, there's no way of forcing addonmakers to adhere to it. Maybe set up a website with the finalized standards on it, where addonmakers can request somebody bring their addon up to the standard?, but that still guarantees nothing. It's a good idea in theory, but I fear it wouldn't work, as much as I wish it would.

The mod I'm working on with a few others would probably fit "Codex S" as the goal is to get everything as close to real world specs as possible. Depending on how much detail is sacrificed our primary terrain could be as large as 150x150 with islands at 1:1 size. if we go that route then we will base everything else, the speeds, ranges, fuel consumption etc. off of real world values. But if the size of the terrain is changed, even slightly, from 1:1 then all of the calculations would have to be redone.

That brings up another issue. A 3 tiered scale system, if it were to be adopted, would wreak havoc once custom islands start coming out. If the islands aren't made to fit the system, then you'll have weapons based off of real world specs that can shoot from one side of the map to the other. Getting terrain makers to adopt such a system would be even harder than getting addonmakers to, because in an addon most of the range/fuel consumption, speed etc. is done in the config, compared to the scale of a terrain being the basis of the terrain, changing it means redoing the whole damn thing.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Darkhorse 1-6

[sickboy 13]

I think modders will want to do their own thing with different ideals / focus / intent, and they have all the right imo, while some will follow other's examples etc.

Community 'standards' are generally also only adopted by those who feel like it, although I think the old JAM/CAVS etc penetrated quite deep.

But, I know how hard it can be to mix many mods because of this..

It is fairly easy to create an override config that changes the values of addons to get them more 'on 1 line'. People have been doing it since the days of OFP.

So pick your addons for PvP, coop, or whatever, and then apply a separate override config for e.g armor, hit/damage etc (mind you, im not saying you should modify the original PBOs!).

Instead of overriding, there's also the possibility to create new classes, and inherit from the original addon classes, and thus apply the needed changes in the new classes.

There are also situations where assets are donated to a bigger full conversion mod, which will make them fit properly. However there aren't so many of those left..

For a technical (A2) bible check; http://dev-heaven.net/projects/cmb/wiki

Edited November 21, 2011 by Sickboy

[sirscorpion 10]

I think modders will want to do their own thing with different ideals / focus / intent, and they have all the right imo, while some will follow other's examples etc.

heavens no, enforcing a code should not be considered, however to insure quality control it does not stop ranking and rating add-on's and modes.

the CODEX should work the other way around, in establishing a an agreed benchmark to what a mod should be like for a PVP environment. reduce the ambiguity of what is arcade/realistic/and simulation. where do the lines start and where do they end.

at the moment most mod or add on websites provide a vague 5 star rating system to indicate quality of the mod. however if a codex is established by some of the Major Modding groups out there "ACE for example :P" it will provide a solid base line to what, how the mod should be done.

at the moment Technical compatibility Codex do exist, i see no reason for quality control measure "not enforced, but used to grade" to be implemented as well. if such approach is welcomed by the community then Codex will spontaneously insure QC of the mods with no need for hard cut off measures.

[sickboy 13]

Right, understand it better now, thanks :)

Well I think it will be hard to establish a codex by one or few teams; at least, I can foresee other developers feeling left out or not agreeing to the codex standard the other teams have come up with etc.

In turn they might even take it rather personal that their work does not meet "some other team's requirement", probably more than when some external party did.

In any case, if such a codex system would be established, I wouldn't mind including it on Six Updater Network.

[noubernou 77]

If its just about technical and realism standards then it'd be nice to have guidelines to do it. I kept reading balance in the first post and assumed that it was about making everything equal, even if it wasn't realistic (adding more steps for the sake of balance).

An example on guidelines. It'd be nice if there was a standard for the development of fixed wing and rotary wing addons that all were able to implement a system to handle things like radar warning receivers, locality of missile guidance (SAMs need to be simulated locally to the target for them to have a chance of hitting them at long range due to issues with positional data being sent), hooking in to weapons systems (LGB, JDAM, etc). That way makers of planes, helicopters, and anti-air systems would be working in a common framework.

You could probably even manage it to be done with out requiring additional addons, just make sure that you expose functions via common config entries or something similar for all addons to interact.

That is probably asking too much though.

Edited November 21, 2011 by NouberNou

[wipman 1]

Hi, the ArmA3 will need a much better addons/mods support; you can't enter on a public server if the server don't haves this addon or have it as valid to just enter on the server, not for play... no no no, for enter on the server.

There isn't any info about which addons or mods are used or allowed, if any at all, on the public servers; the server browser is good but don't offers any useful info about the server's conditions, addons allowed & supported, players inside, players pings & players stats etc.

There's no point on download single addons or full mods if they're not used by most of the servers and players, you'll be screwed up if you don't... and the public servers (the MP part of the game for the average player) isn't really addon/mod companible or even friendly; even the auto-downloaders/installers are not that user friendly... and brings us back to the original problem, that the game is not addon/mod friendly for the average or casual player.

You're limited to the addons/mods for the masses and many times not even "those...". For me the ArmA3 bible will be a full Commands Refference Guide as .pdf, with in-game (on the editor) mission examples and functions examples too, anything that don't be that, wouldn't be a bible like and if it don't comes with info or it's easy to do... then the editor still without being user friendly; in other words, you can't do complex MP missions (read:coops OFP style) if you don't have the info about how the editor works, without that... the editor is useless. Let's C ya

[sickboy 13]

I fail to see what addons/mods support, servers and addons has to do with the topic wipman. The mentioned bible is about common practices / value bases, not a howto on editing.

There's also much more to addons/mods than just MP.

Besides, Six Updater is the answer to most of Addon/Mod issues, especially MP, available for many months already; http://www.six-updater.net/p/about.html.

It's NP at all to run with 10, 25, 50 or even more mods in MP, especially if the server admin has setup configuration for it - as this means the end user only has to click a sixupdater:// link and all the rest is done automatically for it.

The problem here isn't complexity of the software, but slow adoption of new things and premature dismissal of technology because it 'seems complicated' etc, which is a general problem.

And in case of SU - major UI / usability improvements/overhaul is planned for v3.0, which is very close by.

There's also nobody stopping you or anyone else from pitching in. People think these technologies come into existing out of thin air, but that's not how it works, these things cost a lot of effort, time, sweat, tears etc, even money.

In return, the least you can do is provide feedback / bug reports, etc.

Also I recognize it will be much better if such software is delivered with the game, or the technology integrated, as such we're also looking at official support in the game.

Re Editing documentation:

I agree that more editing documentation would be great but it's unrealistic to expect this coming from BIS above a certain level,

most technical info is there when searched for, but the rest seems pretty much up to the community, and I don't think that's weird; name other games (sold for 40 bucks) that has full non-technical-user SDK documentation, I think you won't find any or can count them on one hand.

Somehow some people think they can become/do anything without effort (research, reading, trial/error), skils, etc, and expect getting handed everything from a-z by other people, getting spoon-fed..

IMO one shouldn't ask what BIS / community can do for you, but what you can do for it.

For example, there's plenty of info on the BIKI, there's plenty of guides around on many editing topics, what's stopping YOU from collecting it in one massive PDF, and making it available??

Edited November 25, 2011 by Sickboy

[Cripsis 10]

IMO one shouldn't ask what BIS / community can do for you, but what you can do for it.

I do my fair share for the community, I'm the forum asshole. It aint an easy job but hey someone's gotta do it. Actually to be truthful it comes quite naturally to me.

[PuFu 4600]

I do my fair share for the community, I'm the forum asshole. It aint an easy job but hey someone's gotta do it. Actually to be truthful it comes quite naturally to me.

unfortunately, you lad are far from being the only one...

Re Editing documentation:

I agree that more editing documentation would be great but it's unrealistic to expect this coming from BIS above a certain level,

most technical info is there when searched for, but the rest seems pretty much up to the community, and I don't think that's weird; name other games (sold for 40 bucks) that has full non-technical-user SDK documentation, I think you won't find any or can count them on one hand.

well, if you ask me, besides the documentation that is spread between biki, six, dev-heaven, bif and so other many places, the problem is with the samples just as well...Especially when it comes to new features implemented in a game, there should be an example for it. And before you tell me how hard it is to produce, i can tell you already that a lower res LOD would be more than enough for most of the new ppl banging their heads in the wall trying to figure out on their own something BIS changed...

Oh, SDKs with proper ducumentation, examples and samples: Source Engine, Crytek, Unreal and Unity (all of it being free to use for non-commercial purposes).

Somehow some people think they can become/do anything without effort (research, reading, trial/error), skils, etc, and expect getting handed everything from a-z by other people, getting spoon-fed..

While this is very true, and is specific for a generation today, it is hardly the only problem. And i'll give you an example:

A good friend of mine that has been working in the gaming industry for a company that i am not gonna name here, as a modeller has recently got intrigued by A2, and said to himself: how hard could it be to create professional grade content for this game...while he was done creating all the LODs easily enough, setting those up in O2 was hardly an easy peasy for him, even after banging his head and reading the wiki (and after me giving him some examples and sending him the link for A1 mlods, that mind you, was unable to find by himself with the brilliant biki search engine...he eventually gave up, after almost 1 month of banging heads (even if the actual content is, from an artist pov, ready (model, textures)...i am sure he is not an exemption.

For example, there's plenty of info on the BIKI, there's plenty of guides around on many editing topics, what's stopping YOU from collecting it in one massive PDF, and making it available??

In most cases, the answer will be time. Maybe for some this isn't an issue, but there are times when i find myself wishing for 48h day in order to finish up all the things that i have/need to

[sickboy 13]

Cheers Pufu.

In the case of modelling etc I can see your points, but the reply was to a post about Mission Editor etc, but I did think it was applyable to more than that.

While this is very true, and is specific for a generation today, it is hardly the only problem. And i'll give you an example:

A good friend of mine that has been working in the gaming industry for a company that i am not gonna name here, as a modeller has recently got intrigued by A2, and said to himself: how hard could it be to create professional grade content for this game...while he was done creating all the LODs easily enough, setting those up in O2 was hardly an easy peasy for him, even after banging his head and reading the wiki (and after me giving him some examples and sending him the link for A1 mlods, that mind you, was unable to find by himself with the brilliant biki search engine...he eventually gave up, after almost 1 month of banging heads (even if the actual content is, from an artist pov, ready (model, textures)...i am sure he is not an exemption.

I agree, this is rather sad, and if we can somehow improve this situation it would be great. Either as Community, as BIS, or together.

IMO a Q&A site would be excellent for these kinds of issues (armastack.info fulfilled that role quite nicely imo),

but someone will have to accumulate the information into a guide (added to BIKI) after valid answers have been made, for easy reference etc.

Problem is there is no oversight on this, no community nor BIS lead who takes care of these aspects. (But there are plenty of people answering, and making guides here and there, which are then publically or privately available, but not really centrally).

In my case though, I have very little interest in modeling/texturing, as im a programmer at heart, but see that's how easy it is to find reasons NOT to do it ;)

But this isn't the first time it has come up, and probably also isn't the last.

In most cases, the answer will be time. Maybe for some this isn't an issue, but there are times when i find myself wishing for 48h day in order to finish up all the things that i have/need to

Exactly, but there are people who still expect others to bring them what they need, even when they realize themselves that 24 hours in a day is too short..

How can you expect it from others if you (and others) cannot expect it from you?

I guess basically what im trying to say is that it's nobodies problem in particular, but rather a problem we all share, and we all could chip in to improve, hence my reference to the saying 'a better world starts with one self'.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Sickboy

[Cripsis 10]

unfortunately, you lad are far from being the only one...

Don't worry, we haven't forgotten about you.;)

On a serious note doesn't a different company supply the game models to BIS? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

[PuFu 4600]

I agree, this is rather sad, and if we can somehow improve this situation it would be great. Either as Community, as BIS, or together.

Indeed. I will most likely make a post along those lines soonish, see what's what. The armastack has been really helpful for answering specific questions prior to the server meltdown, but again, was more of a one question - one answer case, rather than a location that would hold the all the information needed to get you from A to Z (A = knowing the basics to Z - getting stuff into the game).

The idea would be to have a place (biki for instance) where more precise information would be put in, rather than only the general or very vague.

I for one found that asking specific members helped me the most, and i have a list of ppl who i should be thanking to (you know who you are). That said, while ppl like myself can do it over skype, new ones hardly know of the existance of skype groups, or ppl that might answer their question.

Exactly, but there are people who still expect others to bring them what they need, even when they realize themselves that 24 hours in a day is too short..

How can you expect it from others if you (and others) cannot expect it from you?

I guess ppl are expecting it from BIS rather than from other community members. And while you and me know BIS doesn't have the manpower to create proper/detailed documentation for their games even when the community content (model, missions, functions, tools, scenarios) plays such a big role, your average Joe won't.

While i am sure there will be little that will change with A3, i can only hope for the better (having most of the information available from the get go).

On a serious note doesn't a different company supply the game models to BIS? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

Not all of it. But yes, starting with A2 BIS have cooperated with community members for some of their models. Same things happens with A3, but on a bit of a different scale ;) That said, that doesn't change anything, even better, the contract with external parties could actually include the samples (again, BIS is afraid of their models popping up on some websites for free, but they could release the sample with removed Visual LODs quite easily).

Edited November 25, 2011 by PuFu

[Cripsis 10]

Thanks for explaining PuFu. I recently found some screenshots of models made for VBS2 by a company called SIMTHETIQ and mistakenly thought that they also provided the models for ARMA.

[max power 21]

Cripsis

It is my interpretation that your comments are light-hearted but they are contributing very little. Please stop spamming. Thank you.

edit: let me clarify that I am referring to your comments further up the page.

[wipman 1]

Hi, *Sickboy, i just can think in the bible as a book or text, an official Commands Refference Guide saying what and how to do it is what comes to mind when i see the word "Bible"; just that.

For solve a problem (according to the chatolic version of the LOTR, aka Holly Bible) they some times have to go to the old testament for look for a phrase and then combine it with some other from the letters to the Corinthians and boila!, there you've the thing to solve the problem.

If BIS is the church... they haven't published a holy book to clarify their religion, there isn't any official path or solution or guide to follow, just a given world full of complex paths that in most cases are dead ends for the standard human. There's no ArmA3 Bible yet and there won't be any, IMO... that's all. Let's C ya