Community Upgrade Project - CUP_Terrains

[war_lord 934]

I'd rather some kind of modular approach, rather then an AiA approach where I need 7 or 8 gigs added to the modlist if I want to use any A2 map or any custom map that uses CUP assets, which will probably be most of them going forward. Even if it's as simple as objects in one pack, maps in another, its better then throwing everything in one.

[naizarak 4]

i thought it was going to be completely modular?

[audiocustoms 375]

i thought it was going to be completely modular?

I guess it's going to be what the community / poll want it to be ;)

[cid1 10]

For me the best way would to release all in one pack. So people doesn't need to download multiple packs. If you want to have the best experience it's worth sacrificing the space needed, Just move some files to a backup drive a usb stick external HDD etc. Or just delete some files or games or something.

[sancron 32]

All in One should be an additional option in my personal opinion. Personal i would prefere a modular System, since not every Unit wants every Map, and also Updating single Maps should be easyer.

[alexcroox 29]

Definitely modular, units are struggling with ever increasing modpack sizes (think new players to a unit, not existing), and modular would definitely be the most flexible way to help combat this.

[MrSanchez 243]

Tbh, for the community/users that want it to be all-in-one, does it even matter if it's entirely modular?

If you do all-in-one you're pissing off the people that want it to be modular.

If you do modular, you're not pissing anyone off because those that want it all-in-one can still add all of the terrains, it's not like it makes a difference for them anyway.

That's my reasoning to vote for modular.

Kind regards,

Sanchez

[rekkless 240]

Yeah but for those who want full all in one, what maps do you actually usually use out of the 7.5gig pack (AiATP) I know my group basically use Chernarus, Takistan, Sahrani (we now exclusively use SMD Sahrani though) and very very rarely Zargabad and Bystrica. All the rest of the map we never use at all simply because they are too small to really have more than one type of mission. I mean look at UTES, what the hell can you do? maybe a market assault as a terrorist group or some kind of quick assault mission for blufor. But overall like so many other AiATP maps UTES just doesn't have that much re-playability.

I would far prefer a pack that just included the major maps (Chernarus, Takistan, Sahrani) then another pack that featured some of the other medium maps (Zargabad, Bystrica, Proving Grounds) then another pack for Smaller maps (Utes, Bukovina, Shapur and what ever else) then another pack for duplicates (Chernarus Summer, Takistan mountains, United Sahrani, Southern Sahrani) To me that would be ideal. But if that isn't on the cards then a fully modular pack where people can download individual maps. Because as I said there really is only 5 maps out of AiATP worth playing on more than once.

The biggest problem with AiATP is its size at a 7.5gig PWS download unpacked at 8.5 gig for essentially 3 maybe 5 or 6 maps it just isn't worth it.

Especially when you consider that vast amount of other maps not included that are far better than most in AiATP like Podagorsk, Kunduz, Fallujah, N'Ziwasogo, Thirsk, Caparia or Esseker to name just a very few.

So perhaps rather than just packs like A2, A2OA etc. Perhaps consider making pack based on size and playability.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Rekkless

[St. Jimmy 272]

Zargabad is actually very good map. I've played a lot of nice battles/missions in it and it's even better than Takistan IMO. I'd put that map in the major pack.

I wouldn't mind a modular pack but I know I'll have them all enabled.

[miketim 20]

+ 1 to Modular pack please, especially if this goes on the workshop, modular will be a lifesaver for communities.

I know people on shitty internet, they just flat out refuse to download an 8 gb mod.

Some sort of base and then modular individual maps would work perfectly.

If you do modular, you're not pissing anyone off because those that want it all-in-one can still add all of the terrains, it's not like it makes a difference for them anyway.

Word up phonic studios :cool: agreed

[cifordayzserver 119]

Tbh, for the community/users that want it to be all-in-one, does it even matter if it's entirely modular?

If you do all-in-one you're pissing off the people that want it to be modular.

If you do modular, you're not pissing anyone off because those that want it all-in-one can still add all of the terrains, it's not like it makes a difference for them anyway.

That's my reasoning to vote for modular.

Kind regards,

Sanchez

I agree with this 100 percent.

Yeah but for those who want full all in one, what maps do you actually usually use out of the 7.5gig pack (AiATP) I know my group basically use Chernarus, Takistan, Sahrani (we now exclusively use SMD Sahrani though) and very very rarely Zargabad and Bystrica. All the rest of the map we never use at all simply because they are too small to really have more than one type of mission. I mean look at UTES, what the hell can you do? maybe a market assault as a terrorist group or some kind of quick assault mission for blufor. But overall like so many other AiATP maps UTES just doesn't have that much re-playability.

I would far prefer a pack that just included the major maps (Chernarus, Takistan, Sahrani) then another pack that featured some of the other medium maps (Zargabad, Bystrica, Proving Grounds) then another pack for Smaller maps (Utes, Bukovina, Shapur and what ever else) then another pack for duplicates (Chernarus Summer, Takistan mountains, United Sahrani, Southern Sahrani) To me that would be ideal. But if that isn't on the cards then a fully modular pack where people can download individual maps. Because as I said there really is only 5 maps out of AiATP worth playing on more than once.

The biggest problem with AiATP is its size at a 7.5gig PWS download unpacked at 8.5 gig for essentially 3 maybe 5 or 6 maps it just isn't worth it.

Especially when you consider that vast amount of other maps not included that are far better than most in AiATP like Podagorsk, Kunduz, Fallujah, N'Ziwasogo, Thirsk, Caparia or Esseker to name just a very few.

So perhaps rather than just packs like A2, A2OA etc. Perhaps consider making pack based on size and playability.

This option was also brought up, but IMO, that's about as confusing for outsiders as you can get.

It's 99.9999pct going to be totally modular, with our links pointing to the "collections", so advanced users can select whichever one's they want, and others can just sync the whole collection. There was a LOT of debate about it among the team, so I figured I should put the poll up, but I made it clear there and here, I'm not going to have that be the deciding factor.

For me, as stated above, there is no impact of releasing it modular, but releasing it all in one forces people's hands. I'm more for individual choice... further, the terrains deserve their own release space, for people to comment on them, for there to be an accurate and complete description of what the island was, is, and might be etc.

This also leaves 3rd party terrains free from having to have other terrains as a requirement of their package.

I honestly don't understand the desire for one package, I think it's motivated by old fears about how confusing addons have been traditionally, but with Steam and PWS both having collections, I think that point is one best left to the past. If you're an advanced user the modularity shouldn't freak you out or confuse you... if you're not, you should be using a launching aid like Steam or PWS, and it should then be fairly easy to just get the whole collection.

I feel releasing it all as one is sticking to a pointless convention of laziness and fear of new player confusion, where as releasing modular is helping advance peoples knowledge of loading multiple addons in Arma and pushes the whole scene forward.

The other thing it helps avoid, is people simply using the APL data to "create" their own mod from our source... which is totally allowed, but really pointless as the work is going to keep getting worked on, so it's best to make it as compatible with as many modders, mission makers, players, and server hosts' desires.

[cyprus 16]

Yeah I personally think a core data pack with separate map downloads would work great. The only thing is it might be better to do one big map pack on steam. People generally don't read there. Although if you clearly labeled each map with NEEDS DATA PACKAGE in giant letters it should be fine. I'll still expect to see dozens of "MAP DON'T WORK PLS HALP" in the comments.

[ianbanks 30]

I feel releasing it all as one is sticking to a pointless convention of laziness and fear of new player confusion, where as releasing modular is helping advance peoples knowledge of loading multiple addons in Arma and pushes the whole scene forward.

Is it an option to release a single archive file containing all the individual modules on platforms where that makes sense? (e.g. Armaholics). If someone had a particular kink for single @folders then they can take that archive and organise it themselves with a bit of dragging and dropping.

Part of the push for an "all-in" approach is the tendency for many co-op groups with large custom mod sets is to have fewer overall @folders to make command lines (particularly with coordinating them between players and servers) more manageable.

[cid1 10]

Yeah it really doesn't matter. Our community Only use Arma3 Sync using our own repository to make sure everyone in our group are running the same mods/addons with the right keys. And some custom tweaked addons for our use. Though a all in one pack would be the best for us (and probably for most other big communities). As long as we can download all the packs that that's needed and are compatible with our terrains and addons. Like AGM (we tried ACE as well,but we think it needs a bit more work before it's ready). RHS, TFAR,HLC,Dragonfyre,Blastcore. And the terrains we use most is stuff like: Chernarus,Caribou,Takistan,Imrali,AlRayak etc. And the new VT5 (highway 5) is just a amazing map,probably one of my favorite map atm. And just a quick question: Are you guys planing to integrate stuff like the JBAD buildings and Arma 2 vegetation reconfigured into CUP? Cause it can sometime be a bit of a hassle to check oh do i need JBAD for this map etc. (though we are pretty used to it at the moment,and know most of the maps that require it or not) But i guess it can be a bit more confusing & disheartening for newer players that want to get into custom missions and stuff,and be a bit overwhelming for them and maybe put them off.

But as people have mentioned,it could be great to have a few options.So if people want to download all the stuff in one pack, and other just some of the stuff i can understand that. But for me personally i'm not worried about how big the download is. I am willing to sacrifice some gigs to get the best possible experience,it's not like it's so expensive for a hard drive anyway. You find 2tb hdd's for next to nothing on sale all the time. whether or not it's an external or internal drive,it's always good to have a backup drive to have things one don't use that often and backups. I think we all know that if you are an arma enthusiast you got to be willing to dedicate some real storage space for addons.

---------- Post added at 04:26 ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 ----------

Is it an option to release a single archive file containing all the individual modules on platforms where that makes sense? (e.g. Armaholics). If someone had a particular kink for single @folders then they can take that archive and organise it themselves with a bit of dragging and dropping.

Part of the push for an "all-in" approach is the tendency for many co-op groups with large custom mod sets is to have fewer overall @folders to make command lines (particularly with coordinating them between players and servers) more manageable.

I completely agree, having less @ folders would definitely be the best for some of the bigger groups. And having a all in one pack on someplace like Armaholic would be pretty nice. As an example here's just some of the @ files i use: http://gyazo.com/f70d4089fb0a281cf60e04566967c1fd

Edited July 19, 2015 by Cid1

[cifordayzserver 119]

I've gotten some more of the smd buildings integrated, added midrange textures to all the A1 islands, and have a fairly short list of fixes left to do.

Haven't gotten much feedback from testers and may setup a Google+ page for it that anyone can access so I can get some more feedback before releasing.

[war_lord 934]

Some people are missing the point, it's not a case of "I don't have 8GB's spare on my Harddrive". If it was just me, file size would be irrelevant. The point is that when you're publicly recruiting people for a unit, you'll find that a lot of people will refuse to download a modlist they consider excessive, either because they have a data cap, or even sometimes out of lazyness. Large units can afford to turn people down, small ones can't. Large units usually maintain a custom repo anyway where they can maintain a single@folder version.

Edited July 19, 2015 by War_lord

[Defunkt 431]

Some people are missing the point.

I think the point that's most missed is that just to run Chernarus is going to take 7GB. If you add the next 4 largest terrains (as somebody else suggested would be 'standard') it's going to be 8GB. Reducing an 8.5GB download to 8.0GB just doesn't seem like it's worth giving up the ability to say "Got the CUP Terrain-Pack? - You're good to play everything we're running on this server."

Not arguing, the modder will of course do as he sees fit (and as I think he always meant to) and it won't cause me any bother personally, I just don't think the case for saving on download size stacks up.

[BryanBoru 10]

With every mod, every unit has a choice to use the mod, or not.

[1212PDMCDMPPM 200]

Maintaining multiple packages seems like a waste of modder time, and this is the most important scarcity we have in the Armaverse.

[bumgie 49]

I completely agree, having less @ folders would definitely be the best for some of the bigger groups. And having a all in one pack on someplace like Armaholic would be pretty nice. As an example here's just some of the @ files i use: http://gyazo.com/f70d4089fb0a281cf60e04566967c1fd

Just to give different view: Our community with around 80 player regular sessions wishes for the modular package because we use PWS and would hope to save some modpack space by not having to add all the terrains. Due to using PWS we have no problem with having large modlines as it does not affect the end user.

EDIT: Reworded my post after having read yours again.

[John Kozak 14]

Just to give different view: Our community with around 80 player regular sessions wishes for the modular package because we use PWS and would hope to save some modpack space by not having to add all the terrains. Due to using PWS we have no problem with having large modlines as it does not affect the end user.

EDIT: Reworded my post after having read yours again.

Just out of interest: is (potentially) saving 1-2Gb of space really worth the hassle of adding 3-10 mods to collection instead of just one?

Edited July 20, 2015 by DarkWanderer

[Baconeo 47]

Just out of interest: is (potentially) saving 1-2Gb of space really worth the hassle of adding 3-10 mods to collection instead of just one?

I would have a thought that a modular approach would be similar to how it is done with HLC weapons, when you want to add more you just add the pbos to the same folder.

[Chairborne 2594]

I would have a thought that a modular approach would be similar to how it is done with HLC weapons, when you want to add more you just add the pbos to the same folder.

And it works like this, like it would with any other mod.

The PBOs are loaded anyway.

[MrSanchez 243]

Some people are missing the point, it's not a case of "I don't have 8GB's spare on my Harddrive". If it was just me, file size would be irrelevant. The point is that when you're publicly recruiting people for a unit, you'll find that a lot of people will refuse to download a modlist they consider excessive, either because they have a data cap, or even sometimes out of lazyness. Large units can afford to turn people down, small ones can't. Large units usually maintain a custom repo anyway where they can maintain a single@folder version.

I use Play withSix and people that join my group generally get to know the modpack size AFTER they join the group. It's not made public. Could be an idea for your group. Plus, since its PWS and there's a custom repo, people don't really mind a large number of mods.

Just out of interest: is (potentially) saving 1-2Gb of space really worth the hassle of adding 3-10 mods to collection instead of just one?

Definitely, especially when you're using Play withSix for collection making. If you are running a community or are part of one, you tend to hear people whine about unused GBs..Hell, some in my community are bitching about 50mb mods in the pack that we aren't using...So 1-2GBs makes a big difference.

I would have a thought that a modular approach would be similar to how it is done with HLC weapons, when you want to add more you just add the pbos to the same folder.

Yep, that's what I hope CUP_terrains will do. I use half of HLC's weapons due to modularity like this.

[bumgie 49]

Just out of interest: is (potentially) saving 1-2Gb of space really worth the hassle of adding 3-10 mods to collection instead of just one?

Yes. Since the way mods are added to a collection is dead simple when using PWS.

The time people spend downloading those GBs or MBs is far longer.