An open letter on basic ARMA:CWA support

[Herbata 10]

You have my support!

[Nuttex 10]

I definitely support this. Nothing I can add aside from what has already been mentioned above.

The show must go on.

[domokun 515]

Bravo! I second this amendment as it seems reasonable and well-intentioned.

[nikiller 18]

hi,

supporting. I still play/script ofp from time to time.

cya.

Nikiller.

[poweruser 10]

To the ones suggesting changes, pay attention to the title of this thread: ... basic ... support

By throwing in suggestions that go all over the board you just manage to discredit it.

Rozek is already correctly suspecting that there won't be coming much, if anything at all.

That means: Focus on small, but critical, changes/corrections, which don't require a dev to give up his current occupation in the ArmAverse in order to delve back deep into such an old project

@source code

I once was longing for the source of just the dedicated server, so I could do with it, what I'm currently doing with the dedicated server for Minecraft. [project link]

But that hope is forsaken. And the more time passes the less players are left who are going to benefit from it.

This 5 year old thread once had the same request. I see your position has changed in the mean time, vektorboson.

I think what W0lle said in there is key. And the ArmA projects all base on each other and back on this game.

[krzychuzokecia 719]

I also support Rożek's petition!

But... Unfortunately, there are always "buts".

The time to fix what need to be fixed in OFP/CWA have passed. It could happen when CWA was released as a free gift to community - at that time CWA was somewhat of a "nostalgia project" by BIS. They've released it, and even offered some really basic support (hotfixes). Then it was the time to ask them to make Linux server, to release CWA MLODs, to release Elite MLODs (these could be easily adapted by modders), heck, even maybe release source-code? But BI decided to leave it as it was (and is), because they were preocuppied with Arma 3. Project started in 2011, and after four years, still in a need for more and more work (let's just say that "1 UAV for all sides" is a symbol of how underdeveloped that game is).

A3 took enormous amounts of BIS' work force and there was also DayZ standalone. Big projects, maybe too big for small, still indie dev. These project probably took most of their resources, so BIS had to do something to fuel up both developments. So they've released A2 Czech DLC (remember how bad it was? Only things that were finished came from the community, the rest - island - felt like a beta), TakeOn Helicopters (using various assets from A2 and A3 development - funny thing that while it seemed to be a test bed for A3 flying model, they've failed to bring that at A3 release), and lastly ArmA X, which contained CWA. Seeing how surprisingly popular this old game is, BIS released it on Steam, as an another way to bring revenue. And that's it. They don't consider it as a full product, but only a good way to promote their newer games.

Making improvements we all would like to see (working in-game server browser, Linux dedi, solutions for aspect ratio) seem to be basic support (as Poweruser said), but they're not really. First problem is a lack of documentation, especially when it comes to network gaming. We've all seen how much of an effort it was for Poweruser and others to make an external server browser. BIS had to do the same, but they can't, because they can't spend their resources on something which is not an A3 or DayZ. Modern aspect ratios are even harder, because they'd need to add this funcionality from scratch - even first ArmA have problems with it. And (this is only a speculation) it could dawn on them that it'd be impossible without rewriting some parts of the game (TBH Faguss' solution, while flat-out works, is more of a hack, and still have some issues). That means even more coders detached from main "money-bringing" projects. I doubt it'll ever happen for such an old game like OFP/CWA. They haven't done it for A1 or TOH. And that's how it'll stay.

(Not that I wouldn't be happy if BIS would prove me wrong! :) )

[vran. 13]

@Poweruser: I read thru that thread and I think that's a poor argument. By that logic the Quake 1 source code should not have been released because it has some similarities with later id Tech engines (which all had their SDKs released too, sans id Tech 5). OFP is so old now that releasing it could only benefit it. Implying that it could take away sales from newer ArmA titles is just silly, imho.

[tom34 13]

OFP never die!! :D The best game ever made, period...

[_xetex_ 43]

I can not support this appeal, because these dreams are nothing more than periodic nostalgia for past.

Community under the force of their own coping with all the challenges faced by the publisher puts us ourselves.

We only have to learn how to move the information so that it reaches all who would wish to receive it. And when that happens, the game can regain some lost positions.

Some bugs haven't been corrected since 2002. And all got used to it. And now the situation is no different from the old.:raisebrow:

Stop feel sorrow - must go forward using any means.

[Revan9190 132]

Just an opinion I want to throw out there for everyone. I have to add, in general, that older games tend to have a bit more of a charm than these newer, 'prettier' games. I would not mistake this with staying in the past, but more of a respect to what came before the current title. We wouldn't have what we have now without what came before the latest editions. Some people feel that many aspects of the current games are lacking when compared to OFP. I think we can at least agree that there are absolutely no games without bugs, for if you fix one bug/glitch, it tends to break something else, however minor or major that error is. No game is perfect - not even the grand OFP - but for many here, OFP are where their hearts are because they began with it. Developer support is definitely encouraged, and there's a lot of it still here in this community thankfully (though this open letter addresses a certain title's lack of current support), and will continue to strengthen communities everywhere, regardless of which franchise it is.

Here's an example of a game still being supported by the communities, long after Westwood Studios went under (and are now making a new game called Victory Command apparently, under a new name): Command and Conquer: Tiberian Sun's source code was released quite awhile back, and now there are standalone game modifications using its engine - Twisted Insurrection, Dawn of the Tiberium Age to name a couple, and people are playing the classic religiously. Tiberian Sun originally came out in 1999. People are still modding it and supporting it and released several well known mods which don't even require the original game. This is just one of many examples of previous developer support for a game many now-a-days consider, "Outdated". I still go back and play the original Command & Conquer (1995) as well - people still playing that either alone or with each other, despite CNCNet being down for I believe a decade.

Would you stop loving your first child when you suddenly have a second 'newer' child? This is a problem with a majority of people of this generation. They forget about what came before it, because the newest titles are overshadowing what brought things to where they are today. We all here CAN move forward, and we are in many respects, but we're not going to forget, because we still care about this legendary title and we want to keep it striving, regardless of it being a 'lower-end' graphics option or just simply for people who don't particularly care for the new titles, or that OFP still has a lot of replayability... Whatever people think about it, it will always still be an option to play it. Nostalgia as it may be, it's still bringing new people in, which is what's important. You can love a classic and not be 'stuck in the past', so to speak. It just drives our appreciation of newer titles up a bit more, because we've stuck with BIS for awhile (regardless of how late we got into everything).

I personally don't think we're asking for too much here, but we can make do and adapt, so whatever happens either way, we won't be incredibly troubled by anything. We just would like BIS to see our appreciation for a still great and thriving title. :)

[anguis 4]

I absolutely support this - hands down, my favorite game.

(CWA Linux server....:rolleyes:)

[vran. 13]

@Revan9190: I agree, OFP is one of those 'magic' games that you can keep playing forever, despite some technical limitations and dated looks. Especially if you're into mission making and modding. There's still lots and lots of stuff that wasn't yet done or explored like for example a pirate-themed mod, 'spaghetti' Western, mid ages, space exploration, ect. We could even make a sports sim or role playing game out of it, anything is possible. :)

[Revan9190 132]

Exactly! There's so much you can do with the RV engine. :)

[Macser 776]

Stop feel sorrow - must go forward using any means.

Sorrow? :)

There's nothing sorrowful about it.Whether I or anyone else wants to use an ancient game

is of no consequence.It's just the way it is.For some it's nostalgia.For others it's ease of

use.And for some it's a game that can run on low-end hardware.Where's the problem?

There's nothing to move forward to.They're just games.You either play/mod them,or you don't.

When they were made,or what they look like isn't all that important.

[Revan9190 132]

Truth! Not to mention that not everyone has beefy gaming rigs. Many people can't even afford new computers to keep up with the latest games.

[Capjerahya 11]

But sad truth is developers don't waste time on something that won't make any profit anymore. Even if it's the mother of all arma series.

[Macser 776]

For me the sad part is not being able to get at source code.Not me personally.Someone with the right knowledge.I wouldn't expect a company to invest work in an old title after this length of time.But source code would allow for someone else to make some improvements.

It's possible there's too much code in common between the titles.I don't know.It's possible the company doesn't want to give people the ability to create something that may or may not offer a lower res alternative to the newer titles.Although,aside from the limitations,that's what the older titles are for many folks.

But whether it's been mentioned or not,even with access to source code,you'd still have the hurdle of

scant documentation.And of course,who would want to take on such a project?It wouldn't be a weekends work.

:)

[Capjerahya 11]

Uhhmm. I don't think that ever going to happen. No commercial company would release their engine source to public. Its like saying they quit in the whole game developing industry and others are free to make a clone of the game.

[Macser 776]

It won't happen if there's code in common with the newer titles.

That's what I was getting at in the second paragraph of my post.

But companies do release source code for older games. :)

[vran. 13]

But companies do release source code for older games. :)

Not only old games, the new Unreal Engine 4 source code is already shared to all subscribers. :p

You have a point when you say there might be a lot of code in common with the newer titles but like you said, it would take more than a few weekends of work to upgrade RV1 to the levels on which the engine is now. It took several years of work to bring it into this state after all. But sure, it would be possible if the source code would be made freely available to the public. For example I'm just experimenting with some ArmA 3 textures and ArmA 2 models in OFP and we have seen successfully ported ArmA 1 animations and 3D sights in OFP. Infact it might be possible to upgrade it to higher levels without manipulating the source code (many effects are doable via 3rd party post-processing programs) although some things are firmly 'hard coded'. To change some such things (e.g. JIP, no AI group limit, better multi-core support, etc.) several lines of code would have to be altered.

[Capjerahya 11]

I my self wanted the ofp source code just to implement Join in Progress option. I even tried to reverse engineer what whole thing thinking I can do it my self but failed. I also spent 1 month just to get a better option for 3D sight in OFP. Thanks to NPS team I was able to make a good sight out of their ideas.

If ever they release the source for public modifications then I would be able to make this feature better. But considering BIS is more in to arma 3 now, I just work with what I have and what I can do with RV1 engine.

Forget about this. Not gonna happen. :3

Edited March 13, 2015 by Capjerahya

[Revan9190 132]

Well there's gotta be some hope here. If it's in demand enough, it's a possibility. Nothing's completely out of the question. Highly unlikely, yes. Completely impossible, no.

[valence mike 11]

As an old-timer who spent countless hours on this game during my teens, I can only approve of this initiative.

Also, our community has now lost a lot of members in its ranks, its best years are behind it and so I suggest that we, the remaining members, unite in one place on the internet and stop the ongoing fragmentation which sees many important resources disappear from the web. We should at the very least have one large and unique online database where every mission, addon, mod and tool is saved and archived.

I feel that could at least make it easier for some of us when nostalgia strikes us and we want to play, only to be restricted to the default game.

[vran. 13]

If there is a chance for a new patch (however small it is), I'd personally like to see better optimization for newer hardware and software and maybe fixing of the MP part. Of course this is a huge 'if' since BI's priorities are elsewhere and the 1.99 version already was a big fan service.

[kolumb 10]

I fully support this idea !