Calling all weapon makers

[slatts 1978]

So I had an idea while in my own little world in work. It would be great if all weapon makers were able to come together and create a bumper attachment pack for all the current and future weapon models to come. I'm currently porting all optics and LAM's I have permission for from Arma 2, that means the TWS, ACOG with RD, m145 etc. to come. But if other addon makers with their own unique scopes were able to come together and create a 'common pack' or at least follow some sort of config naming system to make it easier it would be a huge benefit to the community in general.

So how would it work, well as I understand the config system this should work,

A person willing to add to the pack would rename the texture path to a common directory. (e.g. cap/data...)

Then submit the model to myself along with a config for the optic/attachment. ( If you don't trust me fully you can binarize the model once it's all good to go :) )

I'll bug test everything and make it's all in order before releasing it.

Any weapon maker who wants to use an optic from the pack simply has to DL it, set it as a required addon and and define the class names of what they want to be usable on their weapon. This way no unbinned p3d models are floating about, reducing models being ripped/models being used without permission, but allowing the community to share more, this is a massive benefit to all of us in my opinion.

Finally a name, I was thinking Universal Attachment Pack, Common Community Attachments, or Community Attachment Project. You can submit you're own :P

So, who's with me? :D Drop me a PM or hit me up on Skype if you're interested :)

Slatts

---------- Post added at 00:01 ---------- Previous post was at 23:55 ----------

Woops should have been in Arma 3...can a mod slap this in the right forum please?

Edited May 30, 2013 by Slatts

[Sakai 1]

I aint no modeller sadly but surely can port weapons and create variants :3 I guess I entered the wrong room

EDIT: even if in ArmA 3, can do that as well :P

[don2k7 1]

thats sounds like a good idea in theory, having one common addon rather than lots of little ones seems better.

my skills arent great but would help anywere i could

sounds like 'by the community for the community'

+1 vote to that

[R0adki11 3949]

Sounds a great idea :). Also moved your thread as requested :)

[blu3sman 11]

I would certainly love to have one common attachments pack.

But current mounting interface ruins the whole idea of compatibility, isnt it? http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=2766

[slatts 1978]

As far as I understand the system, once someone configs their weapon to accept certain optics, they're the only ones that can be attached. So once it's coded, a M4 can't take a PSO-1 etc.

[sakura_chan 9]

Couldn't a system similar to the extended eventhandlers addon from CBA be used? In the weapon config you would define the slots available, like it is done currently, but the actual slotinfo would be set up the way the extended eventhandlers are so that you could simply add your new optics to the list without having to replace anything. The gun config would say that it can only use optics with a certain mount, and if you made an attachment you would add it to the slotinfo class for that mount type.

Another alternative would be to have the slotinfo defined in an external, unpacked .hpp (basically a .txt file) that would allow you to add the optic manually to each mount slot. This would be undesirable because anyone could change it and uses any optic on any gun if they wanted.

[comp_uter15776 1]

A unified system of weapons, attachments, and maybe even other addons such as kit would be such a huge benefit; it would reduce the number of mods required no end!

[Jackal326 1173]

A unified system of weapons, attachments, and maybe even other addons such as kit would be such a huge benefit; it would reduce the number of mods required no end!

And also be running at about a Terrabyte within a month with constant updates and additions, it would be as much a curse as it would be a benefit.

Don't get me wrong, one unified pack of optics and attachments would be great (kind of like JAM was for OFP - for those of you who don't know, it was basically a huge codebase of practically every calibre of ammunition and magazine size coded up with high dispersion versions as well for the AI to dumb them down). However, you're always going to have some people who will look at using the pack, not like some of the models or whatever, think they can do better, and just use their own regardless.

[da12thMonkey 1943]

Another alternative would be to have the slotinfo defined in an external, unpacked .hpp (basically a .txt file) that would allow you to add the optic manually to each mount slot. This would be undesirable because anyone could change it and uses any optic on any gun if they wanted.

You mean like adding a set of macros for the allowed attachments list that can be edited via userconfig?

So somewhere in your weapons config you'd have something like

#include "\userconfig\userattachmentslist\attachments.hpp"

and in your weapon class you'd have

			class CowsSlot: SlotInfo
		{
			linkProxy = "\A3\data_f\proxies\weapon_slots\TOP";
			displayName = "Optics Slot";
			compatibleItems[] = {__BISoptics,__Picatinnyoptics,};
		};

And in \userconfig\userattachmentslist\attachments.hpp you'd have lists of attachments defined like:

#define __BISoptics "optic_Arco","optic_aco","optic_ACO_grn","optic_hamr","optic_Holosight" etc.
#define __Picatinnyoptics "R3F_AIMPOINT","R3F_AIMPOINT_DES","HAFM_optic_m4_acog",... etc. etc.

I did wonder if something like that might work, and did start trying to write a proof of concept for it, but soon after the initial idea I had serious concerns about multi-player compatibility, and random "no entry config.bin" errors popping up if you start injecting attachment classnames into your cfgweapons that aren't loaded onto servers via a userconfig, or you don't have the appropriate addons being referenced by your userconfig loaded into the game at that time. Like you I realised the idea was problematic.

Macros/.hpp defines could be useful for people making separated attachment .pbos to accompany their weapon addons though, or if weapon makers wanted to be dependant on an often updated, community attachment addon like that being suggested by Slatts. Means they wouldn't need to re-release their weapons pack every time the attachments addon was updated with new models, in order to add all the new attachment classes to the compatibleItems list for the weapon classes. Obviously in that case the .hpp file would be inside a .pbo in the attachment addon rather than being freely editable in an open userconfig folder.

[theplato 10]

I'll also say that I'm available to do custom sounds for everyone's projects. Send me an email or PM.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

However, you're always going to have some people who will look at using the pack, not like some of the models or whatever, think they can do better, and just use their own regardless.

Ofcourse, and I'd say that is a good thing, but if they're inclined to let thier 'better' models replace the old in the pack all the better.

Great idea Slatts.

[Messiah 2]

And also be running at about a Terrabyte within a month with constant updates and additions, it would be as much a curse as it would be a benefit.

Don't get me wrong, one unified pack of optics and attachments would be great (kind of like JAM was for OFP - for those of you who don't know, it was basically a huge codebase of practically every calibre of ammunition and magazine size coded up with high dispersion versions as well for the AI to dumb them down). However, you're always going to have some people who will look at using the pack, not like some of the models or whatever, think they can do better, and just use their own regardless.

I agree, although one way to lighten the load is to categorize and seperate the pbo's by attachement types, origin, rail system?

[slatts 1978]

^ Indeed, I don't want it to be the M4 packs of Arma 3 with 10 different ACOG models. It'll be a mess and wouldn't work. I think a "plug in" system is best separating them by a few values and allowing the user to decide which ones they want.

[Leboudin 10]

That's cool :）

[Kerc Kasha 102]

You mean like adding a set of macros for the allowed attachments list that can be edited via userconfig?

So somewhere in your weapons config you'd have something like

#include "\userconfig\userattachmentslist\attachments.hpp"

and in your weapon class you'd have

			class CowsSlot: SlotInfo
		{
			linkProxy = "\A3\data_f\proxies\weapon_slots\TOP";
			displayName = "Optics Slot";
			compatibleItems[] = {__BISoptics,__Picatinnyoptics,};
		};

And in \userconfig\userattachmentslist\attachments.hpp you'd have lists of attachments defined like:

#define __BISoptics "optic_Arco","optic_aco","optic_ACO_grn","optic_hamr","optic_Holosight" etc.
#define __Picatinnyoptics "R3F_AIMPOINT","R3F_AIMPOINT_DES","HAFM_optic_m4_acog",... etc. etc.

I did wonder if something like that might work, and did start trying to write a proof of concept for it, but soon after the initial idea I had serious concerns about multi-player compatibility, and random "no entry config.bin" errors popping up if you start injecting attachment classnames into your cfgweapons that aren't loaded onto servers via a userconfig, or you don't have the appropriate addons being referenced by your userconfig loaded into the game at that time. Like you I realised the idea was problematic.

Macros/.hpp defines could be useful for people making separated attachment .pbos to accompany their weapon addons though, or if weapon makers wanted to be dependant on an often updated, community attachment addon like that being suggested by Slatts. Means they wouldn't need to re-release their weapons pack every time the attachments addon was updated with new models, in order to add all the new attachment classes to the compatibleItems list for the weapon classes. Obviously in that case the .hpp file would be inside a .pbo in the attachment addon rather than being freely editable in an open userconfig folder.

I was thinking about this a bit too, I think in order to skirt around the issue of people using attachments on servers that don't support them is to have it be addon based rather than editable in the userconfig, so the macro addon would have the default attachments set and would have the functionality for other addons to 'add' to that macro, so you could have several different attachment addons working together instead of overriding each other similar to the CBA event handlers. However CBA does this by overriding the default event handlers with a call to their own script which then applies the event handlers defined in extended event handlers, this trick won't work in this case making it difficult to make it modular but I haven't had much experience with macros.

[don2k7 1]

I agree, although one way to lighten the load is to categorize and seperate the pbo's by attachement types, origin, rail system?

this in my mind would probably work better. if you had a 'core pack' with optics and attachments then maybe sub packs for weapons/configs etc for example m16pack/scarpack/sniperpack and have it so people could pick the pbos they want and dont want as long as the 'core' was there, that would lighten the load.

I hope that makes sense and they are just examples guess it just depends on the size of the mod in total

[slatts 1978]

In terms of size, I reckon if you look at a large weapon pack from Arma1/2 with dozens of models you're talking close to what we might have if everything was bundled together. But 2 things for sure, the AK style mounts will be separate due to smaller size and less options for use. And I will try to avoid multiple models of the same attachments as much as possible. If someone wants to donate a CompM4 or a ACOG when we have one or more already they need a good reason ;)

[don2k7 1]

In terms of size, I reckon if you look at a large weapon pack from Arma1/2 with dozens of models you're talking close to what we might have if everything was bundled together. But 2 things for sure, the AK style mounts will be separate due to smaller size and less options for use. And I will try to avoid multiple models of the same attachments as much as possible. If someone wants to donate a CompM4 or a ACOG when we have one or more already they need a good reason ;)

seems fair enough, so what models/attachments do you still need? i only really sugested the comment before because everyone has there own preferance to which weapons they use. Think it would also be nice to see to be able to have, lets say custom weapon layouts i mean like i always wondered what an sa80 would be like with a tws sight rather than holopoint or susat and a silencer for example

[PuFu 4598]

what do you mean by smaller?

[slatts 1978]

File size compared to the RIS options, I can only think of..6..maybe one or 2 more options for AK siderail type optics. Was probably a bad example but my main reason is because they are much limited in what they can be slapped on.

[Alwarren 2766]

If someone wants to donate a CompM4 or a ACOG when we have one or more already they need a good reason ;)

Speaking of good reason, I have an ACOG with a beta-style 3D scope ;)

[nouty 10]

Oh yes, the definitive community weapons and attachments pack. I can already picture it in my head. It wouldn't have to be every weapon imaginable, but the most needed stuff, like a decent selection of modern stuff that you would have in Arma 2 with ACE+ACEX, or something along those lines, to keep the size within reason. You could always get additional, more exotic weapons and other stuff if you'd like.