A question to bas addon studio

[theavonlady 2]

Speaking of talent and redundancy, take a look at BaconBob's addon site.

Are you here, BaconBob? What do you think about this duplicate addons problem?

[Eviscerator 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 20 2003,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Speaking of talent and redundancy, take a look at BaconBob's addon site.

Are you here, BaconBob? What do you think about this duplicate addons problem? <span id='postcolor'>

Thats Earls site, hes making weapons for Sucheys Marines at the moment

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Eviscerator @ Feb. 20 2003,10:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 20 2003,09:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Speaking of talent and redundancy, take a look at BaconBob's addon site.

Are you here, BaconBob? What do you think about this duplicate addons problem? <span id='postcolor'>

Thats Earls site, hes making weapons for Sucheys Marines at the moment<span id='postcolor'>

OK, still a redundancy problem.

From the looks of it, it might be worth Suchey's efforts to switch to BAS' weapons and for Earl to join BAS.

Suchey's soldier look unique, though, of couse, we don't know what's in BAS' pipeline, do we now?

Worth BAS having a private shmooz with Suchey and Earl, IMO.

BTW, Eviscerator, fix your sig. Where's the BAS banner?

[Eviscerator 0]

I took it off and replaced it with just the text after the 'fight' with tracer/jahve from TOW, i didnt want to bring down the name of BAS with any of my actions (and the banner was highly visible), also theres a lot of bad feelings towards BAS coming from their co-leader which doesnt bode well for them co-operating with us, but, i think we should add the Falklands team to the list they definately deserve to be up there and operation northstar as well as Project UK Forces, i think this co-operation will work as long as it is conducted by mature people/teams, what i would hope to see is a number of packs catering to the players(and mission makers needs) needs, so say a US Army pack, with several special forces from BAS, the M1A1-2's from operation northstar, a C-130, various helicopters, standard US soldiers from say OCB, and all the various weapons (and hummers and anything else ive missed) and their desert counterparts in one zip, and so on for different military forces (US Marines, Modern Russian Military, British Military, Middle Eastern Forces, African Militia and so on) with not just one mod team doing everything, and then another doing it all again, but taking the best bits around that fit, and then whatever needs to be made can be discussed, although i think a lot of these can be done already, or will be able to be done in the near future, with this the mission maker could just say, for example, "You need the US Army and British Forces along with the Middle Eastern Forces for a combined operation in Afghanistan by the British and the Americans", instead of listing off about 20 zips

[whisperFFW06 0]

If OFrP can join the discussion, I'll be happy to tell other OFrP members to come here or relay information. This standardization (and other mod weap/units "incorporation", ie use, in case we need it)would help us alot in setting up units correctly.

But using 3rd party addons inside the addon you're making would be pretty tough. When it has been done, remarks where raised about "Why do I need this X addon for Y to be working?". See remarks made about Sigma-6 CAN tanks using Canadians unit addon, if I remember well (and this case was even worst, because Canadian units were part of the same Mod).

Anyway, how to solve the potential mess created by addon A require addon B which require addon C which bla bla bla....?

I can see 2 possibilities :

1) include the required addon in the new one. Problem is that it will lead to multiple download of the same addon, and potential issue with having several times the same addon in addon folder.

2) Make an addon which do not require any other one (without re-creating what you need when it is already done, just forget what you need), and another .pbo containing the units referencing other addons, telling "take care, this one requires X, Y and Z".

At least, when referencing A requires B which requiries C, make sure you can't make A requires C.

Perhaps I'm just off road here, but I fear an "X requires Y requires Z" mess.

Whis'

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ Feb. 20 2003,11:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Perhaps I'm just off road here, but I fear an "X requires Y requires Z" mess.<span id='postcolor'>

I think it's the lesser of two evils. If you tell me that a mission, campaign or mod uses a set of listed addons, then that's finite and clear.

If you start duplicating the same addons in different files and the original addon makers put out a new version, watch out!

I used to prefer avoiding addons. However, now that great quality addons are coming out and OFP now allows you to set up separate mod folders to help manage them, I'm much less concerned.

[Tigershark 0]

Which why there needs to be one central controlling body.

Mod teams can contribute or modify the tank pbo or the weapons pbo...but one body needs to recompile the PBO to incorporate the changes.

Look guys...this aint gonna be easy...lets not kid ourselves......but just coz its hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try and set something up.

I see the bigger problems in people saying "Why is XXX mods M4 better then my mods M4?...I like mine better so I'm gonna keep it."

What I hope would happen is people say "XXX mods model is better, but YYY has better textures, ZZZ has better accessories and BBB has better iron sights...how can we pull these together to make the best and single M4"

Thats the biggest challenge as I see it

[whisperFFW06 0]

Whooooo, Tigershark, you are 128 steps before what I was thinking about!

Ok, now I see where you wan't to go. Tough, you're right.

I can see why some could refuse to see their addon modified in cpp and textures, and can't blame them for that. Not for "secret of fabrication", but because of the time spent ni research for correct cpp configuration, time lost because another addon maker though it was to strong against his own addon, and modified everything in his own addon.

Whis'

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Feb. 20 2003,12:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see the bigger problems in people saying "Why is XXX mods M4 better then my mods M4?...I like mine  better so I'm gonna keep it."<span id='postcolor'>

Solution:

3rd party impartial judges, including other respected addon makers and community members with some military background.

It can be worked out. Sometimes, someone's ego might have to give, even if they're right, if the differences are relatively trivial.

And when there's a stalemate, so that's that. The players will definitely decide.

Also, this is less of a problem for BAS when coordinating with addon teams making non-west weapons.

Anyway, you get the picture.

[Guest]

I think it's a case of "You want to be part of this? Leave your Ego at the door".

As for udating uberPBO's here's a thought. Say West.pbo needed to be updated...10 new addons to be put in it. You could choose to either download the whole new version, or download the addons needed to update it and unpack/pack it yourself. An addon maker with even the most basic skills can unpack/pack, and the rest can dload the updated vers. Obviously this should be done fairly infrequently....

Either that or create patches etc, but that's a bit of work...

[Guest ####]

I hate to be a pessimist here but I can see this standardization thing being the downfall of the modding community for this game. Anyone interested in createing models will be turned off from doing so because someone else has already done it. If we had done this before we would have never seen the Ranger/Delta pack see the light of day since there would already be the units available.

What would be useful though is if a standard for things like Damage, armour protection values, accuracy and rate of fire values was established using a mathematical equation so that if someone else makes an M4 model it has compareable vlaues in terms of damage as other M4's based on scientific data and not guess work.

Armour values can be based on an equivilancy of rolled homgonous armour plate, Sigma-6 used this sort of data when making his tank packs. Then when someone makes a WWII armour addon the armour value will not be too high when compared with modern armour.

Various equations could be posted at OFPEC and other editing sites to establish the standard values.

[Rastavovich 0]

You could use a software to check dependancies of addons. Of course this software would need a netbased libary with all addons and their needed .pbos. Maybe it could also be some sort of "download center". (This isn't from me, but I can't remember who told me once that idea).

Another thought: for updating .pbos you could use another program, that unpboes, replaces/changes and repboes a given pbo. So it would be kinda "patching".

I am thinking in ways of "user friendly". Of course this software needs to be programmed first. But I have no doubt that here are skilled ppl around.

BTW: I like the idea of standards and cooperation like this.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (#### @ Feb. 20 2003,18:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I hate to be a pessimist here but I can see this standardization thing being the downfall of the modding community for this game. Anyone interested in createing models will be turned off from doing so because someone else has already done it. If we had done this before we would have never seen the Ranger/Delta pack see the light of day since there would already be the units available.<span id='postcolor'>

If someone comes out tomorrow with a better version of the Deltas and Rangers than BAS made, I'll be more than happy to switch.

No one's stifling competition. It is an attempt, however to prevent unnecessary repetition.

[-Ash- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ Feb. 19 2003,19:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I do agree with the sentiments expressed here. Right now I'm looking at two Falkland War mods that long ago decided to compete with each other instead of cooperate.

Both have very good looking addons thus far, and while they may take opposing viewpoints on the conflict (as you probably know, one mod team is Argentinian, the other predominantly British) they will both be making the exact same weapons and equipment for their mods. I find it mind boggling that they couldn't find some kind of agreement to split the work. Now, we're going to have at least two versions of everything that saw service there. I'm sure the quality of everything will be very good, but it's just so frustrating to know that they are wasting so much time!<span id='postcolor'>

That's a fair point.. And in an ideal world this would happen.. But it isn't.. This has been brought up before somewhere else on the forum..

Anyway we made most of our weapons before we'd even heard of the Malvinas mod, and I'm pretty sure they had done the likewise. As for competing.. This simply isn't the case.

Both mods are concentrating on different angles of the Falklands War thats why it's impossible for a merge.

[Guest]

But surely you are using a lot of the same weapons/vehicles/units?

And the ablility to "patch" PBO's would be excellent. It's not like this would be done every week...say every 6 months (or there abouts...)?

[Eviscerator 0]

Leone, i think the main problem with those two mods is the storyline, the argentinian mod has a very anti-british storyline, even some of the 'information' on their site has falsifications and lies, and to brits (which i believe a large majority of the falklands 1982 team are) its definately not something you want to see, basically like someone doing a very pro-german WW2 mod, so its understandable why they dont get along

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @ Feb. 20 2003,18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But surely you are using a lot of the same weapons/vehicles/units?<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe the Argentinians designed their Skyhawks to take down a British Harrier with one cannon burst or vice versa.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

Yes having rangers and stuff is fun but whats the use if there is nothing to shoot at

[vektorboson 8]

Best would be to ripp off fundamentalists and terrorists from HK-pack I think, then you had something to shoot at!

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (STS_SolidSnake @ Feb. 20 2003,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes having rangers and stuff is fun but whats the use if there is nothing to shoot at  <span id='postcolor'>

Been much discussed here and elsewhere.

There are the Russians and Christoph's and UCEs ME units.

Just saw some NK's, didn't we.

Yeh, I know. They don't compare. Quality east soldier addons are much needed by us all.

[kikill 0]

hi ofp people,

i'm really happy to see that we, the community, finally discuss about cooperation.

it's amazing the amount of addons of the same vehicle or weapon, one better than the other or sometime of the same quality, i think about m4, uh1, famas...

we cannot condamn this, because it was in the early days, when everyone was excited about the opportunity to make addon. everyone had its idea, started it, or simply wasn't satisfied enough of one addon and modified it, retextured it.

it's ok.

but now, we arrivied to such maturity (yes Tigershark you forseen it time ago -OFPEC- but it takes time to grow) that's why we're talking about it now, and it's not a matter of people years old.

at this time, we can cleary identify which group or individual make what. and it's easy to see that there is too many duplicata.

it's time for everyone involved (DKM, BAS, RAS, OFPGWC, etc...) to table and stop this.

They must first define standards (in a common sense) of texture quality, pictures sources, blueprints, strength of unit... and then decide together (hand in hand  ) who will make what, so no more WASTE OF TIME, no more DUPLiCATED units, and much more HIGH RANKED addons!

Should BAS make another comanche or should DKM modify it so it corresponds to some quality rules?

the idea of a dedicated forum or thread is interesting, it offers a place to debate of the quality and the role of each one. the exchange of modeling technology, savoir faire is impressive, and will lead to a level of addon unreached at this time, really better than what BAS did (just picture the share of knowledge between BAS-Baconbomb in skinning for example)

if every mod post their projects we'll be amazed to see the number of identic units. think about the time that will be saved as avon said, and talented modelers, skinners, would be concentrated on creating the lacking units.

we all agree, the goal is to have coordination between every mods, so each one keep its name, identity, BUT respecting A standard defined by every major group (or at least the best creators, they have experience and savoir faire)

take care.

[peanuckle_00 0]

I know its possible to create your own somalis but I'd like to have somali units. I also would like to see some technicals out there. My pal Melkor was going to do a technical but I don't know what happened. I'd also like to see some sort of russian fast attack vehicle.

[Schoeler 0]

I think Avon's right, the standardization committee needs to be a third party group with some military knowledge.  I had in mind a member of each of the participating mod teams, but I think that would lead to dissension.  What would be ideal is a 5-7 member evaluation team, who have work submitted to them by the addon makers, and have designated contacts within participating mods.  It would then work like a military procurement contract.  If two modmakers are working on a similar project, they submit preliminary work and the evaluators pick the better quality project and or offer tips for improvement.  If BAS has better model M4's and Baconbob has better textures for them, then the committee recommends Baconbob use BAS's model and BAS use Baconbob's textures.  This way no ones feathers get ruffled because they aren't telling each other this, they are being told by a neutral third party with the interests of the entire community in mind.  Just an idea, I don't know how feasible it is though. Oh, and if one mod is making a different M4 version with a different site or different textures, then they have to use the committee approved model, modify it, and then submit the work for evaluation, the pbo would then be added to or updated by the committee, and put out on cooperating websites in their addons section.

[VXR 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Feb. 20 2003,21:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think Avon's right, the standardization committee needs to be a third party group with some military knowledge.  I had in mind a member of each of the participating mod teams, but I think that would lead to dissension.  What would be ideal is a 5-7 member evaluation team, who have work submitted to them by the addon makers, and have designated contacts within participating mods.  It would then work like a military procurement contract.  If two modmakers are working on a similar project, they submit preliminary work and the evaluators pick the better quality project and or offer tips for improvement.  If BAS has better model M4's and Baconbob has better textures for them, then the committee recommends Baconbob use BAS's model and BAS use Baconbob's textures.  This way no ones feathers get ruffled because they aren't telling each other this, they are being told by a neutral third party with the interests of the entire community in mind.  Just an idea, I don't know how feasible it is though.  Oh, and if one mod is making a different M4 version with a different site or different textures, then they have to use the committee approved model, modify it, and then submit the work for evaluation, the pbo would then be added to or updated by the committee, and put out on cooperating websites in their addons section.<span id='postcolor'>

so the committee is gone say if we have to use the skins or models? or can we decide on our own?

[Schoeler 0]

Well, Once a model get spproved by the committee, as "THE" standard for the community, then their would be no need to make another. Anyone wishing to make a new version of the weapon would have to modify that model. If they think they made something better, it gets submitted for evaluation to replace the current standard. This way, things keep getting improved, without a lot of redundancy, and mod teams save time by working together. Imagine if you didn't have to create a whole new set of weapons, or tanks or aircraft, but only had to add the textures or accessories your mod desires to a pre-existing model. A lot of time would be saved by the mod teams if they agreed that one anothers work was good enough for the community and they started focusing on projects to make things that haven't been made yet. Also, it would motivate the teams to make the very best addons, so they could set "THE" standard for the community as a point of pride. It allows for competition, but healthy, friendly competition while at the same time cooperation between the mod teams.