Unified Addon Standards

[da12thMonkey 1943]

(for the life of me i can't remember the name of the chart or find it at this very moment), that was also considered to be a community standard when it came to setting up armored levels for tanks, apcs and alike, in order to have gameplay compatibility between one and another

Was it CAVS?

I can't remember that many people making much use of that since there was always disputes over the balance of values (and often serious amounts of nationalistic bullshit) attached to perceptions of one side having better armoured vehicles than the other. It really wasn't helped by the fact that OFP's damage model was really really simplistic though.

For the past two games, comparison to BIS' vehicles and weapons seems to have worked quite well as a "gold standard" owing to the fact that there has been some improvement to the damage model allowing for a more natural balance, and the fact that BIS have used far better values for their original stuff. ACE did have much a better armour system, but I can't really recall any addons outside of those distributed with ACE actually using it - namely because it was quite a lot of work to implement, and kind of made the addon useless outside of ACE. As I said before, a "standard" really has to be the easy option in order for addon makers to immediately adopt it.

CBA works well for many because it provides a suite of ready-made functions that are easier to use than writing them from scratch yourself. But at the same time there is nothing in CBA that makes it an absolute necessity for those who don't make use of its functions, or are willing and capable of replicating the functions within CBA in their own scripts.

[PuFu 4600]

Was it CAVS?

Yes, it was.

Ace armor system used it as a start point anyways, and that was for the a2 version, so well after it made transition from wgl.

For the past two games, comparison to BIS' vehicles and weapons seems to have worked quite well as a "gold standard" owing to the fact that there has been some improvement to the damage model allowing for a more natural balance, and the fact that BIS have used far better values for their original stuff. ACE did have much a better armour system, but I can't really recall any addons outside of those distributed with ACE actually using it - namely because it was quite a lot of work to implement, and kind of made the addon useless outside of ACE. As I said before, a "standard" really has to be the easy option in order for addon makers to immediately adopt it.

Because ace changed a lot of the inheritance, one had to inherit from ace rather than from bi's, which made things quite a big more challenging keeping both ace and vanilla compatibility. Ace armor system is indeed best so far, and i wonder why bi didn't build on it...

CBA works well for many because it provides a suite of ready-made functions that are easier to use than writing them from scratch yourself. But at the same time there is nothing in CBA that makes it an absolute necessity for those who don't make use of its functions, or are willing and capable of replicating the functions within CBA in their own scripts.

I never said it is a necessity, but rather a very welcomed helper, especially when event handlers is concerned. The ah64 by nod and franze is proof of that

I for one can script simple stuff, but my main skills are in the 3d department, and i honestly welcome cba for more complex things.

I guess it could be just the same if a cfg for a3 would be created. Rather a guideline and a helper than a requirment.

[Defunkt 431]

I think the problem you (and all those who have posted similar proposals in the past) are tying to solve here was ultimately proven to be more effectively addressed by total conversions like ACE. In ACE there is a compatibility and quality standard agreed upon by its core team and the project frequently incorporates and adapts contributions from other willing modders.

That said, one of ACE's cornerstones is CBA and this was developed, or at least is maintained, by many of the same modders who contribute to ACE. I believe there has been a little talk about moving some more of ACE's fundamentals, like armour, damage and targeting systems into some other layer that sits between CBA and ACE. If it happened this would present an excellent compatibility target for other modders who wanted to improve the interoperability of their mod. Sadly I don't think the idea has found the required favour with those who actually make things happen in ACE (and that's their prerogative).

[PuFu 4600]

Hm, ace is actually a improved and feature driven project. Or so it started back in the a1 days (i was there, i should know). That said, what happens within ace happens within all other larger groups that develop for arma. It is obviously not a mistery that it is easier to maintain compatibility when you have access to the entire repository.

That said, i am one of those who think that ace takes certain things a bit too far on the realism scale for my own taste.

Obviously, a community driven total conversion mod is in the utopia world, even if it would be module driven.

To answer you, there should be a template based on bi configs outline rather any of the existing or previous 3rd party mods. Surely, one could improve upon it, but the said layout should be as neutral as possible

[Defunkt 431]

At the end of the day, the fundamental problem here is that the vanilla systems, which should be the game's baseline, just aren't as good as they ought to be.

[PuFu 4600]

Which is hardly the subject of this thread

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I never said it is a necessity

Don't worry mate, only the first and perhaps to a lesser extent the second paragraph, was directed at you. :)

The rest was more general musings on what seems to have made things moderately successful as a "community standard" - where it's not necessarily been driven by merit of the enhancements it offers to overall gameplay or general conformity with other addons, but more by ease of adoption. The results of my stream of consciousness after you got me thinking of how armour standards have carried over titles. ;)

[gammadust 12]

I think there is a great potential for standardization to help in many fronts to the benefit of everyone:

Modders:

- Access to templates which ease their work (ie. configs, models)

- Scripting guidelines for common functionalities

- Common set of concepts and wording, facilitating communication for whatever purposes

- Learning aids for beginners

- etc.

Players:

- Would start to recognize the patterns modders adopted (ie. Menus for interaction in the same place and input keys, manual configuration of mods)

- Common visual theme for addon types and presentation helping identification

- etc.

Standardization is a natural force against the fragmentation of servers we see, if not directly, no one is forcing no one to adhere to the standards be they modders or server hosters, but they can weigh in along the time. Surprise factors are reduced on all tables where guidelines are set.

The thing is, and probably the most relevant reasons behind no standard being in effect: Bohemia as the most authoritative does not share their own (which i'm sure exist, but perhaps contain too internal of information) in which hipothetical case i believe the whole scene would already be riding that wave. Secondly at the lack of an authority one needs a comission to aggree on them (clan/mod groups have them by their nature), the whole community does not serve as a comission. Thirdly there is significant work involved creating the different standards, distant from what a modder prefers to do most. Forthly there is a tendence to look at standards at such a deep level that it's very utility becomes rare, and at the same time increasing the odds that a modder wil not adhere to.

Let's start with surface stuff, someone mentioned that modders don't like to fit their mods in categories, but:

- Island (all islands share a modding process, they can be seen as special case)

- Asset (all use models, highly depend on common set of config entries)

- Mission (more diverse, but just asking a mission maker how many times he repeated a finish condition and...)

- Feature (most features require activation menus, can't we agree a common place were this functionality will be available?)

Back to basics, simple stuff, begginer level stuff. Can't we in this community find some intermediate level modders, familiar with the basics, to survey for these routines, these sufficiently abstract and basic notions for each category types of mods, and start to solidify some uniformity? One just needs to look at his own workflow, the basics pop up on every corner (what is that repeating decision i allways fall down to in this part of my creation process?).

Any standards made as an option to the end-modder, he ultimately decides the level of adherence, and let whatever standard become norm by it's merit and not by ruled enforcement. There is a natural tendence to stability, let's aid and create some references, uniformity will emerge.

I really think there is merit to the OP and there are potential benefits of huge impact. This is actually an idea so dear to me that i have a reference to it (in passage) in the topic created to collect input on the pollemic "paid user-made content" (i call them rules/guidelines in the context of a Contest, idea independently of which any standards a mod could reach out to would absolutely benefit all). I really think we should make an effort.

[antoineflemming 14]

So, standardization. Well, sure, you can have the same standard layout for modfolders: @your_mod\readme.txt, @your_mod\addons\{your addon pbos + .bisign files}, @your_mod\keys\{your .bikey file}

Same standard for reskins: BIS releases official templates for reskins of their assets (there's your quality).

Other than that, not really sure how you could have any kind of standardization. For the above (about learning aids and different types of mods), the best way to achieve that is for any learning aid to apply to the so called standard. If you had that, then modders would then learn the "standard" and be more prone to follow that standard, not because it's a standard, but because that's the only way he/she learned how to mod and organize their mod. So, really, instead of pushing some collective agreement on uniformity, how about just push for the drafting of a comprehensive modding "TTP3" so to speak? That way, it's not just about standards and uniformity, but about helping newcoming modders.

[gammadust 12]

So, really, instead of pushing some collective agreement on uniformity, how about just push for the drafting of a comprehensive modding "TTP3" so to speak?

I don't see the point of going into semantics. Totally aggree when you say "Why not a comprehensive modding "TTP3"? Wouldn't you think the broader the inputs to it's creation the richer and more effective, instead of a single guy spending it's best efforts and time?

This is a type of effort were an "aggreement" does not have to imply endless discussions about whatever detail(s) (was it my mention of "comission" - it was presented exacly as an obstacle). Contributions can be and are mostly comulative not necessarily confrontational/mutually exclusive, specially since we even have as reference the access to the practices/solutions and interactions with the engine preferred by Bohemia. But one needs to interpret those examples, simplify them, abstract them to allow more general applicability and usage possibilities, put them at the reach of a new modder.

That way, it's not just about standards and uniformity, but about helping newcoming modders.

I structured my thought with a focus on standards, it is also the OP wording. Collect this has you find it usefull and motivating for you own participation in enriching the ultimate goal(s), helping newcoming modders is a noble one, i also mentioned it, but I am absolutely sure the benefits are not limited to this.

Don't get me wrong, maybe you misinterpret my wording, and of course i can also be wrong in my own interpretation of the OP intents, but it appears to me you're seeing some kind of incompatibility or friction between notions where it is simply not due.

If it is the feasibility regarding the scope of task that lets you more skeptical, i also mention it as an obstacle, others mentioned it, we know! Is there something we can do about it? Start small, basic things, superficial things. Distributed to several guys with own experience at a specific topic (i know not much about modeling, but i'm sure i could effectively contribute elsewhere), even several guys contributing to the same topic, sharing some best practices. We just need to set common goals and objectives. Work on what we can agree and i even risk to say that if we simply ignore the stuff we can't aggree on, we still could create something useful.

[.kju 3245]

Sorry to say but way too much text.

A short precise, bullet point overview is needed to get anywhere.

What is the goal, what is to be done and how to achieve it.

[comp_uter15776 1]

;2503725']Sorry to say but way too much text.

A short precise' date=' bullet point overview is needed to get anywhere.

What is the goal, what is to be done and how to achieve it.[/quote']

Aside from the summary at the top of the OP, it's essentially:

-Standardize various aspects of mods.

-Help each other to reach this so it is truly uniform.

-How - this is where you come in. The discussion everyone has been having paves the way for what kind of standard you would like. I listed some examples in bullet like notation in the OP, to kickstart this.

[.kju 3245]

various aspects of mods

This is a key question to begin with.

What are these various aspects specifically?

[comp_uter15776 1]

;2503840']This is a key question to begin with.

What are these various aspects specifically?

That's for you to decide. If I was the one just making the decisions then it wouldn't be exactly a community standard. Again, it's in the OP, as bullets.

[antoineflemming 14]

;2503840']This is a key question to begin with.

What are these various aspects specifically?

Island

Mission

Asset

Feature

As just an example by gammadust.

I'm not optimistic this will get far, but you could come across as less hostile than your posts appear to be. I understand you want detailed specifics, especially of how this will affect you and your mods, but he's pretty clear. At the same time, the OP is not proposing a specific standard. Why? Because that's not the point of the thread. It's to ask that a discussion happen on some uniformity. And, understandably, there are addons makers who don't want some uniform standard forced upon them. Now, any agreed upon standard can't be forced on a modder, but that some people's first impression of a "standard": something that you're bound by. So that's why I said the goal, sure, could be on uniform standards, but that the focus should be on this being a framework for newcoming addons makers. In other words, any discussion that is to be had (and it'd be good if we start actually discussing this) should discuss "packaging" this as a Modding 101 guide of sorts, such that people learn the standard instead of having to accept this standard, whatever it may be.

As well, I'm still not really sure what it accomplishes unless you have a quality standard. And good luck with any idea that determines the level of quality of any addons.

[PuFu 4600]

;2503840']This is a key question to begin with.

What are these various aspects specifically?

agreed' date=' to many words, no specific direction.

1. creating a config layout for weapons, magazines, ammo (infantry and vehicles) along the values provided by BI, that should included base classes (at least)

2. creating a config layout for vehicles (both wheeled and tracked)

3. setting up a template .p3d for each individual vehicle class, that should include information for setting up basic armor penetration and ballistics

That is the first 3 from the top of my head

That's for you to decide. If I was the one just making the decisions then it wouldn't be exactly a community standard. Again, it's in the OP, as bullets.

Then you shouldn't have started the thread as you did.

Island

Mission

Asset

Feature

LOOOL. Yeah, explain that to kju some more, i'll grab the pop corn.

I'm not optimistic this will get far, but you could come across as less hostile than your posts appear to be.

He's not hostile, he's pragmatic

I understand you want detailed specifics, especially of how this will affect you and your mods, but he's pretty clear.

it is anything but clear if you ask me. A lot of going around the bush, with no set scope.

As well, I'm still not really sure what it accomplishes unless you have a quality standard. And good luck with any idea that determines the level of quality of any addons.

??

[bluedrake42 10]

yes I think this is a great idea, if there's one thing ArmA needs (even on BIS's side) is some god damn quality control

[gammadust 12]

I am actually recovering the idea of antoineflemming, could actually help us start out because it is a good analogy.

Let's make ourselves Editors / Contributing Authors of a Leaflet* Collection on "Modding for Arma 3", titles follow:

1 - General Creation of an Addon and Logistics

• Types of addons (config based, script based, asset based)
  
• Single Player and Multiplayer general considerations
  
• Main References (wiki command scripting, other solid sources of information)
  
• Tools and applications
  
• General Workspace
  
• Structure of an addon
  
• Publishing of an addon (pbo creation, signatures)
  
• Distribution and Licensing
  

2 - Mission Creation

• Summary - how the general information in (1) may apply to this Title
  
• Single Player and Multiplayer (Compatibility, Dependence on addons and it's implications)
  
• 2D Editor Overview
  
• Base Workflow
  
• Triggers and Modules
  
• Basic Scripting in-editor / Scripting outside the editor
  
• Etc.
  

3 - Modifying existing BI Content (could deserve it's own topic, it is a great way to learn the engine and begin modding)

• Config organization and main areas (what goes where CfgMagazines, CfgWeapons, CfgGroups, CfgVehicles, CfgFunctions, etc.)
  
• Opening/Unbinning Pbos (recommended tools)
  
• Config Editing/Patching (good practices such as adding upon instead of overwriting - notice the recommending tone, if a modder intends to actually modify,
  making a correction or such, this can still be a useful reference)
  
• Modifying textures
  
• Etc.
  

4 - Asset Addons Creation

• Summary - how the general information in (1) may apply to this Title
  
• Single Player and Multiplayer
  
• Base Workflow
  
• Types of vehicles (inheritance of engine provided features)
  
• Animation
  
• Reuse of existing textures
  
• Working examples of config structures
  
• Etc**
  

5 - New Features Addons

• Summary - how the general information in (1) may apply to this Title
  
• Single Player and Multiplayer (Compatibility)
  
• Reusing of existing Functions and access to external frameworks (its implied Dependencies)
  
• Base Workflow
  
• (...) this is highly variable but I'm sure we can specify some good practices based on the general sutff in (1)
  

6 - Creation of an Island

• Summary - how the general information in (1) may apply to this Title
  
• Single Player and Multiplayer considerations
  
• Base Workflow
  
• Assets required (sattelite maps, topography)
  
• Tools (Bohemia apps, 3rd Party apps)
  
• etc.**
  

** i never made one so it is hard for me to synthetise

Additionally we could have

7 - Creation of an [Addon type] (another type i may be missing)

8 - Scripting Topics

• Scripting is used everywhere (Wiki has very good ready to use pages to borrow from)
  
• Facilitating configuration of addons to the user
  
• Allowing other mods to know of it's presence
  
• (...) Anything requiring a bit more experience but still able to wrap the creation process
  

9 - Intermediate / Advanced Topics

• (...) Recurring topics yet requiring more advanced knowledge
  

*Lets call it a leaflet (2-8 A4 pages), otherwise if we say "book" everybody runs to the trenches

*Topics no more extensive than 2-4 paragraphs, with an illustration or two where applicable

*Some sub-topics are recurring (SP/MP, Workflow, but they do have specifics when applied to the different types, and it is useful for a modder to plan over it in advance, saves a lot of re-working)

1. The leaflets could be an ongoing effort and versioned (say to keep it relatively stable, every 6 months a revision is made, apart from the first version which may require a more flexible time to be created)
   
2. Stressing that an outline of the purposes of the collection of leaflets should be set before actual creation
   
3. People contribute on a voluntary basis, preferably focusing on a leaflet topic, a review for accuracy would be swell from knowledgeable members which we have (a CaMSO could wrap it up).
   
4. Quality would not come from the preference of a method over another that someone can contribute (if there are two good methods, include them both as alternatives)
   
5. Quality would be inherent to the project due to the overall accuracy of the information and the safety net it provides to anyone which adheres to it. The better and solid the information the more merit it will have and higher the adoption.
   
6. The possibility of a modder adopting certain visual/presentation recommendation, should never go pass that: a recommendation. In fact the whole thing is exacly that a nothing more: A Collection of Recommendations
   
7. Attribution of a "Seal of Quality/Compliace" is a matter that I suggest we keep parallel to this effort and not tied to it.
   
8. Imo this should be taken not so much as a serious Industry-Standard-General-Assembly-Sub-Commission-for-Proper-Addons but as a modest effort to facilitate the modding scene.
   
9. We don't need to publish all the leaflets at once
   This facilitates finding volunteers to contribute and begin on an availbility basis
   Just the [1 - General Creation of an Addon and Logistics] and [2 - Mission Creation] would already make a significant difference, and are actually the most pressing because of the Steam Workshop current ability to share them wide be them seasoned mission makers be them the very player base(certain issues do not show their ugly head here)
   

Edit: some additional stuff that came to mind. Also, i offer myself straight away to compile anything we can come up with in the end in a tidy and good looking PDF.

Edited September 15, 2013 by gammadust
correction

[instagoat 133]

This kinda comes across as some sort of bureaucratization of the modding community. Sort of like a ministry of mod approval? I do not know how this can be productive: organization is the way to success for an individual mod, but I am unsure how you can herd a bunch of cats of people who do things for fun under an umbrella of rules that will inevitably force some to or beyond their range of skills, time and will.

The only effort I remember that was successful in this vein was JAM. So, maybe individual fields of mods could benefit from unified systems (ie, Attachments), but not the entire breadth of the modding community.

[gammadust 12]

This kinda comes across as some sort of bureaucratization of the modding community. Sort of like a ministry of mod approval?

I was exacly suggesting we should approach this effort avoiding that (see bullets 7/8), in any case this would be the decision of the modder to adopt these recommendations, chosing also between a strict approach or a loose approach or even in it's extreme use them as a mere reference ("No, no, i won't do it this way, it complicates this, this and that. Better do it so..."). Even in this latter case is useful.

(...) how you can herd a bunch of cats of people who do things for fun under an umbrella of rules that will inevitably force some to or beyond their range of skills, time and will.

Oh dear... Why do you say "inevitably force"? (it's a real question, is there a reason? maybe i don't see it)

• Adherence shall always be voluntary (the same way you pick a tutorial and you collect from it what you find useful). But in this case with the advantage (enabled by those Collection of Recommendations) that it's creation already took into account the broader picture of modding. Example: even if one just wants to create an Asset (consulting the relevant leaflet), the process followed has the potential to avoid common pitfalls, benefit from certain compatibility considerations which were already taken care of. Load is taken away from the modder in two ways, those aware of pitfalls don't have to constantly remind themselves of such, and those unware benefit silently.
  
• All in a more cohesive manner. Not in a one-size-fits-all, which would be impossible, but through a common denominator between very disparate possibilities. The latter would automatically imply a very basic level of depthness in the information as opposed to long and extensive how-to's.
  
• At the very least recommendations would be using commonly accepted language to refer to anything, facilitating the search for alternative avenues of creation to the non-adopter. Even questions/issues popping up in the forums have the potential to be of a more informed level, and easier to address.
  

Aside - In my country there is and was a very big issue with language. Government decided to change the language by decree. It did not work, it is not working (after 1 decade+). Culture follows it's own steps. Adoption in schools is limited by the understanding of new orthography rules by the very theachers, there's an awful lot of ambiguity - imagine correction of exams. Full blown foundations/institutions repel it.

Why do i think this can be diferent? Because the point is not to enforce anything, higher adoption will come about in a measure of success and merit of the very recomendations. Maybe we should not even call it recomendations, if it runs the risk of carrying that negative weight, and maybe find an alternative wording for it: "Modding Good-Practices" / "Modding Common-Practices" / "Modding Topics"

Really the point is absolutely NOT to force anything on anyone. Recommendations are not Rules (see bullet 6). They're not even minimum thresholds for quality. I am at least personaly trying to push it away from there.

Edited September 15, 2013 by gammadust

[cifordayzserver 119]

While I like the spirit of this I think the regimentation and implication that mods outside of the badge somehow are lacking is not a healthy or productive method.

This sort of dissemination of method and information was and remains one of the main goals of our group. Unfortunately we are still buttoning up our methodologies and staging in order to begin lessons.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?160746-ArmaVersity-Est-2013-Are-you-ready-to-go-quot-Back-to-School-quot&highlight=armaversity

We should begin training the first few aspiring modellers within the next few weeks.

We will first train a few guys that are pretty far along, but missing the last bits and bobs...

Then we will have the work reviewed by some of the top level modders who have agreed to help.

Once everything is reviewed and approved the steps are documented and added to the library of tutorials.

The idea is eventually to have eager new modders grab assets from the A1 (and hopefully A2 shortly) MLOD... they mark that asset as being worked on... they can post about whatever issues or problems they are having and get direct assistance.

We hope to eventually stimulate an environment where much like the current skype channels where expert community members offer their advice to others, are now able to view and share their desktops real time without so much as clicking out of the chat environment.

We've been quite swamped with the Map and Buildings, and DayZ project, but we are reaching a stage now where we should be able to focus on sharing the knowledge we've gained with the community.

I have been in contact with Dwarden as well about contributing these tutorials and other documentation to the BIKI and here in order to sure the information is widely available to all.

As a relatively new member of this community, I find the passion of the players and modders of this community to be second to none, and our whole group is honored to have been treated so well by so many!

We can not wait to start really giving back beyond just asset/map contributions.

[gammadust 12]

^^ The community is so wide, and even spending entire weekends in the forums, you miss so much good stuff. I've joined your group, at the very least to check out (though i'm not a moddeller and the project appears inclined that way)

If the concerns here are related with an eventual "badge"/"seal", i can't speak for the OP and his thinking on that, but personaly I wouldn't object. I do believe use of Standards has merits in itself, not requiring a visible certificate.

[antoineflemming 14]

agreed, to many words, no specific direction.

1. creating a config layout for weapons, magazines, ammo (infantry and vehicles) along the values provided by BI, that should included base classes (at least)

2. creating a config layout for vehicles (both wheeled and tracked)

3. setting up a template .p3d for each individual vehicle class, that should include information for setting up basic armor penetration and ballistics

That is the first 3 from the top of my head

Then you shouldn't have started the thread as you did.

LOOOL. Yeah, explain that to kju some more, i'll grab the pop corn.

He's not hostile, he's pragmatic

it is anything but clear if you ask me. A lot of going around the bush, with no set scope.

??

Well, all that was based on what gammadust and Comp_uter15776 were saying.

What seemed pragmatic to you seemed a bit hostile to me. Anyway, config layout, template .p3d, etc, all could be pooled into a comprehensive modder's resource. But whatever. As far as the not sure what it accomplishes, well, unified standards are nice and all, but how do they impact anyone? I mean, you could say "Everything's organized the same way", or "Everything has the same structure", but beyond the goal of helping others, I just don't see what real, meaningful benefit this could have. I mean, like in reference to Bluedrake42's comment, well you can't influence quality control. Quality depends on the time a modder is willing to put into his/her mod. As for the config layout, well that's nice and all, but I don't see how that impacts anyone but the modder. How does that help the community. Because from what I got out of the first post, this is some how going to be helpful to the community. Am I wrong about that?

[PuFu 4600]

Well, all that was based on what gammadust and Comp_uter15776 were saying.

The scope should be obviously larger than simply categorize stuff.

I perosnally think about it along the lines of kju Dh modding bible, or what Rock started regarding creating an updated version of workflows and templates that would act as a start-up for new and veterans content creators alike.

What seemed pragmatic to you seemed a bit hostile to me.

I guess you are a more sensitive creature.

Anyway, config layout, template .p3d, etc, all could be pooled into a comprehensive modder's resource. But whatever. As far as the not sure what it accomplishes, well, unified standards are nice and all, but how do they impact anyone?

I mean, you could say "Everything's organized the same way", or "Everything has the same structure", but beyond the goal of helping others, I just don't see what real, meaningful benefit this could have.

Obviously, you can't force it down someone's elses neck. It's usability should surpass the normal reticence towards standardization, by being provided with templates and guidelines for your work (similar to the PSDs released, to the templates released by BIS for their character models etc).

I mean, like in reference to Bluedrake42's comment, well you can't influence quality control. Quality depends on the time a modder is willing to put into his/her mod. As for the config layout, well that's nice and all, but I don't see how that impacts anyone but the modder. How does that help the community.

No, both the jpg badge and the quality control is a bad jock in itself, or rather a lack of deeper knowledge regarding how this community feels from the comp-utter lad.

That goes for everyone who chipped in so far, that firstly reads the OP and goes: "what the fuck are you on about here: how can you control the quality of someone elses work from an arbitrary posture? u mad?"

Because from what I got out of the first post, this is some how going to be helpful to the community. Am I wrong about that?

No you're not, from where i am standing this should be the aim

[[aps]gnat 28]

Sat back and observed for a while.

This has been tried before. ..... In the end, addonmakers make stuff because *they* want to.

The addon-making community is far too dynamic to stifle it with a set of universal standards that cannot possibly cover every idea that the creative minds of this community will come up with over the coming years. A few small-scale standardisations have come about like JAM for OFP

I don't really agree with this, I think the community in general does a great job of promoting and pushing the great mods to the top. Most people create addons because its their way of being creative, and most dont get paid for this. To imose limits and have some one else tell others how and when to be creative doesn't sound like a very appealing hobby to me.

You will never be able to set a standard for content that is made by various people in their free time, with different and wide range and level of skills. .... There are obviously different standards withing modding groups such as ACE, RKSL, RHS, but those are all different, and their main reason is to get things working on the same level for everyone who is contributing to that group. But even then, things are really loose.

To conclude, nobody is really interested in such standardization, beside maybe the consumers.

What they said.

-Standardize various aspects of mods.

How long is a bit of string. One end is people like me, other end is groups like BI. Theres a LOT of ground between.

^^ The community is so wide, and even spending entire weekends in the forums, you miss so much good stuff.

You said it.

I'm going to use my sparse spare time to make addons, cuz I like being creative, but first, and on a regular basis I have to check everything meets dozens of "standards"?

Nope, not going to happen.

And its not as if I note other mod'ing communities are doing the same.

But if Paid User Content comes about, I will reverse this and demand standardisation. Why, because I bloody paid for it and it better working along side all my other paid content or I want my money back :)

But I can guarantee PUC will result in the opposite affect, mod'er will close shop doors and hoarding all sorts of information.

All that said, as the guys have pointed out, there is already good chunks of unity. CBA, TAGs, distribution, etc etc

I'd suggest the need isn't that great, its not as if A2OA addons were a gigantic mess and nothing worked along side everything else. Sure, some exceptions, but definitely not the end of the world.

Suggested solution to improve this general situation without imposing on peoples creativity:

Provide a BIKI site that talks about/documents the common mistakes (more so compatibility).

More like: "Go forth and create! But watch out for these common pitfalls"

Ask the experienced members to document some of their "WTF did I do there!" moments :)