A question to bas addon studio

[kikill 0]

so both BAS and Baconbomb will make the same weapon? again 2 M16... same model, same texture... come on, BAS and Bacon can talk, they would realise they're doing the same gun, they can either decide:

- one will make the M16 the other an M4

(for example...)

- one the model the other the skin

because they exposed their projects, they agreed on a quality rule, they decide to not waste time and share the work! result: 2 supa dupa fly guns!

[Guest ####]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peanuckle_00 @ Feb. 20 2003,21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

Well I've got mechanics jeep with an MG on it but I'm waiting a bit to get permission or to just release it and give him credit even though he did not get back to me yet.

I also want to take the skoda in game, chop the roof off and add a HMG on it too. A nutty czech technical. I have a few other technicals on the drawing board at the moment.

[Schoeler 0]

No, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say.  BAS makes the weapon say, if the committee decides they made the better model, and if they decide Baconbob's textures are superior to BAS's, then BAS uses his textures.  That way we get the best models and textures together.  Then, if someone wanted to do a different texture or configuration for the weapon, they can take the approved model, modify it, submit their version for evaluation, and if it meets community standards, then it goes into an updated pbo and is submitted to participating websites that host addons.  This way, there is only one silenced M4 with an aimpoint site and laser site on it instead of three or four, all with different damage values, different configs, different textures, and slightly different models.  Instead, you would get one version of that weapon with say BAS's model, Baconbob's textures and TOW's config, or whoever it was the evaluation group decided made the very best in each of those three areas, and chose that for the community standard.  The committee could then update the standard if a mod team submits something better.  But if something is done nearly perfect, to the satisfaction of the entire community, there would be no need to waste time redoing a model just to add a few rivets, or a better bayonet lug here or there.

[mooncaine 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 20 2003,09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you think that the west addons you're using are superior, equivalent or inferior to BAS'?

Or are BAS not appropriate? If not, why? Damage model? Weapons? Disagreement on realism features (uniforms, backpacks, radios, etc.)?<span id='postcolor'>

Therein lies a problem--unlike open source software, top addons are closed. You can't open the config.cpp for a tank or gun and find out what values it uses, right? Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm new at this.

I'd be loathe to trust an addon completely whose values are hidden from me, but willing to do so if the community is supporting the mod. Playtesting is good enough--but open sharing of information is better.

Of course, sharing that kind of information would help wannabe addon makers like me, too, so I have a bias, I confess.

[VXR 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Feb. 20 2003,21:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say.  BAS makes the weapon say, if the committee decides they made the better model, and if they decide Baconbob's textures are superior to BAS's, then BAS uses his textures.  That way we get the best models and textures together.  Then, if someone wanted to do a different texture or configuration for the weapon, they can take the approved model, modify it, submit their version for evaluation, and if it meets community standards, then it goes into an updated pbo and is submitted to participating websites that host addons.  This way, there is only one silenced M4 with an aimpoint site and laser site on it instead of three or four, all with different damage values, different configs, different textures, and slightly different models.  Instead, you would get one version of that weapon with say BAS's model, Baconbob's textures and TOW's config, or whoever it was the evaluation group decided made the very best in each of those three areas, and chose that for the community standard.  The committee could then update the standard if a mod team submits something better.  But if something is done nearly perfect, to the satisfaction of the entire community, there would be no need to waste time redoing a model just to add a few rivets, or a better bayonet lug here or there.<span id='postcolor'>

i do think a modteam decides for theirselfes at the end even if a commitee says they got to use the other skins or models etc

[kikill 0]

well it seems while i was typing my previous post, you posted your second, i didn't see it but i think that will be a little heavy to handle, just as slow as administration is... i think that a quality chart defined, accepted, writed by addon-makers (just like ISO, or national certificates) would be better, so addons can be evaluated and graduated

[Schoeler 0]

Right, see if we cooperate, then th up and coming addon makers don't have to waste time on making a new set of M4's or an M249. They simply get onboard with BAS, and use their M4 models and just retuxture them or add a site that doesn't already exist in the community standard M4 pbo. When a new version of the M4 that meets committee standards for quality is submitted, it gets added to the community standard pbo as an expansion pack. This way, their is only one M4 pack pbo with only one version of each possible configuration of the M4 in it. It cuts down on the number of pbos, stops redundancy, and encourages friendly cooperation as well as competition between the mod teams while at the same time providing inncentives to them to make the very best. Everyone is going to want their model/texture/config to set the community standard during the trial evaluations by the community approval committee. Its like a the intial competition between say Boeing and Lockheed on the Joint Strike Fighter project. Each team does their best to win the approval of the commission, and when one team, say Lockheed get the thumbs up on the airframe, boeing stops wasting it time making an airframe for the plane. But if Boeing makes better engines say, or a better more stealthy coating of paint, then they are awarded that part of the contract. This way both teams compete but in a productive non-redundant manner.

[kikill 0]

to eliminate redendents, what about a thread where every projects are displayed, so if someone or some mod wanna make an addon they just make it known, or will see that it's already in development, then they could offer help, ask for a ID less version (i think about different country's camo, patches...). Or just concentrate on the creeation of another addon... tell me if you don't understand

[Schoeler 0]

Well, vixer the mod team could still release a version with their own skin, but say they made the better model and Baconbob made the better skin. Then the evaluating committee would assemble that version of the M4 or whatever it was to the standard addon pack for M4's. If the mod team wants to release it with their own skin, then so be it, but if its nearly identical to Baconbob's and his is decided to beslightly better, then the redundant version doesn't get added to the pack, only the best of the best goes in. It means having to let go of ego though, which might be hard for modmakers to do. Many of them might not want to hear that they didn't make the best skin, even if they did make the best model, or have the most realistic config for the weapon. But the standardization would save the community a lot of time and harddrive space, and would make mods easier because everyone would know which version or what addon come with a mod, because they would all be the same.

[Totmacher 0]

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=657021

plz help me

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=27389

and my old links again (WARNING these weapons are very old)

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=643821

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=643120

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=642448

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=642464

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=642767

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=573812

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=603611

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=541057

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=542440

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=554433

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=558836

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=558838

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=603648

http://www.k-foren.de/attachment.php?s=&postid=605651

[Schoeler 0]

I understand, and in a sense, that what I'm suggesting. But with a 5-7 member impartial evaluation committee, the mod teams don't step on each other's toes. It would be easier for them to hear that someone else already made that version of the M4 for example and that theirs just doesn't quite measure up to community standards from this third party group than it would be from another mod team. This way if the competitor still wants to try and set the new standard for the community, they go back and make a better version of that M4, or they accept that its already been done as well as it can be done and move on to something different. If they want to modify a skin for say a different nation, or add a new version of the M4 that doesn't exist in the community pack yet, then they submit the new version for evaluation using the approved model with their new skins or reconfiguation for approval as "THE" standard for that version of the M4. If it wins the trial, it gets added to the community M4 pbo as a totally new version of the M4. This way addon packs are standardized, with only the best in them, and mods save a hell of a lot of time. I don't think this would be too administratively heavy, because the odds are that only one or two mod teams are going to want to compete to set the standard anyway, and a small third party committee could evaluate a submission within a few days. All this would be done on a board closed to the general community at large where only committee members and participating mod teams could communicate amongst themselves. Joint ventures, cooperation and healthy competition can only mean a betterment of the community at large and in the addons in general. Think about it. If there was only one uber M4 pbo, with only one version of each possible configuration of the M4 in it, with the best textures, the best and community accepted standard config, and the best model in it, who would donwload anything else. They would already have the M4 pack everyone was using for their particular mod with every possible version of the M4 in it, and they would know where to get an updated version.

[dm 9]

maby we are going about this the wrong way... all this talk of a "committe" and so on... who would run it? why them? and so on...

we allready have the base to set our damage models and weapon values on... go grab a decoded config.cpp from a-lone-wolf's site

then we just need to work on the idea of preventing duplicates...

[Schoeler 0]

You may be right, but I was just thinking that an impartial third party group of people selected by the mod teams to coordinate work and approve things for standardization would take the tensions out of the mod teams telling each other these things. If the mod teams feel they can cooperate without stepping on toes, then that would be much simpler. I'm just trying to suggest some democratic way to get the community more organized and working together, so that we don't waste time and we get assured of the highest quality addons that meet a standard for the community. It sure would be a lot easier having only one M4 Pack, one delta force pack, one ranger pack, one Commanche pbo etc... with all of the possible versions of that item made by all the best mod teams in it.

[VXR 9]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Feb. 20 2003,23:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You may be right, but I was just thinking that an impartial third party group of people selected by the mod teams to coordinate work and approve things for standardization would take the tensions out of the mod teams telling each other these things.<span id='postcolor'>

If there will be enoug modteams that are gone join it

[Powerslide 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Feb. 20 2003,23:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You may be right, but I was just thinking that an impartial third party group of people selected by the mod teams to coordinate work and approve things for standardization would take the tensions out of the mod teams telling each other these things.  If the mod teams feel they can cooperate without stepping on toes, then that would be much simpler.  I'm just trying to suggest some democratic way to get the community more organized and working together, so that we don't waste time and we get assured of the highest quality addons that meet a standard for the community.  It sure would be a lot easier having only one M4 Pack, one delta force pack, one ranger pack, one Commanche pbo etc... with all of the possible versions of that item made by all the best mod teams in it.<span id='postcolor'>

What mod teams? The popular ones or the ones doing quality work? How many people really care about Canadian add ons unless they are Canadian? So who would really care if there were ten different Griffon Bell 412 choppers out there? Not many, except Canadian fans. What someone needs to do is start a website with a comittee and vote on what gets hosted and what doesnt. ofpbestaddons.com. Then of course you get the patronage, the marginal stuff that gets in because someone is "popular" and their last add on was good. Like the unofficial official OFP add ons. If BIS had the time or energy it would be nice if they took all the "cream" and released it in patches but I know that won't happen. In fact there are some add ons good enough to replace BIS models. And what happens when the unkown guy makes a better "something something" then the popular mod/addon teams? Does it get replaced? Not likely.

[Guest ####]

I have to agree with powerslide, get a site up that rates addons and maybe with it have a data page so people when making addons do not make them too powerful or weak.

[kikill 0]

ofpec is already rating addons

[Guest]

Ummmmm...I don't think the idea should just be to make "popular" addons as such. Whilst it mightn't matter to you about Canadian forces, it does matter to them. And this sort of thing should be done in the spirit of inclusion not exclusion. There may well be plenty of addons that you will never use, but somebody out there may find them absolutely perfect....and I don't think this should (or could) be the sort of thing where we telll people what they can play OFP with.

Just as a general principal, does everyone basically agree on the following aims:

1. Reduce and eliminate redundency.

2. Standardised config values as much as possible.

3. Open source on configs (put it in the read-me).

4. Co-operation on technique/skills.

I am leaving out creating uberPBO's for the time being, because I don't know that there is an ideal way for the selection of the items to be placed in it yet...but that may change (I only just woke up).

Also I still stand by the idea of having mod-teams etc having a forum of their own....not to choose who is making the best model/texture etc, but to concentrate on the above 4 aims, and to encourage more dialogue between everyone. Ultimately if it seems that everyone can't work together on making uberPBO's, then just drop it.....

PS...those of you who are reading this thread just waiting for an outcome....participate plz...have your say...it's your community too  

[kikill 0]

waiting for that open letter... we'll at least have a clear opinion from someone concerned

[Sigma-6 29]

Okay.

I was just pointed here by Blink Dog, and I'm really pleased with the progress (and I can't see it as anything but progress, because by definition and principle, mature dialogue can only be that, regardless of its outcome).

My thoughts:

1. Reduce and eliminate redundancy.

Absolutely, reduce . . . but not eliminate. That may be an unachievable goal, especially if you take into account the fact that there are, today, amny independents with addons that outpace the big names who will never publicize them because of initiatives like this, or because they're just doing it for themselves.

I'm not interested in seeing that redundancy eliminated. . . Variety is the spice of life.

2. Standardised config values as much as possible.

This, I believe, is the key. Anyone who has spoken to me will tell you that this is where my bread is buttered.

The reason is this:

We don't have to *enforce* standards. My work, for example, is based on Defence industry figures. I found that if I took the T72 that BIS shipped as the baseline, the armour values corresponded *directly* to the Defense industry's International standards for ballistic testing. (equivalencies of RHA) Hats off to BIS for this.

I used these numbers, (round offs of published figures from the US, Germany, Russia, and various other sources, as well as mathematical data from various sources and firsthand descriptions of battles involving the units. When people objected, I pointed them to the figures published by the groups they thought they were defending.

Using this standard does several things for the community:

a: External, real-world, physical data that happens to correspond to the game engine is indisputable. All we do at this point is decide which are the most reliable figures. . . (there will be disputes here, but fewer than if it doesn't get dialogued)

b: Potential addonmakers don't have to devise systems, because they can see that the defense industry already has one that relates directly to the engine they're using.

c: a T34 doesn't stand up to an M1A2, whoever makes it, and if it does, it doesn't have a compliance tag in its readme.

3. Open source on configs (put it in the read-me).

Sure. But I am not going to have people recirculating SIG tanks with fantasy numbers in them. I'll do that once there's an established standard, and I'll co-operate to establish one. I'm sure others will agree to this, having gotten long-winded, poorly researched, often childish emails concerning the inaccuracy of their exhaustive research, announcing the writer's desire to alter and 'correct' it. . . (and sometimes then asking for permission).

Call me a snob, but that's how I see it. Nothing has stopped me from donating material, publishing *figures* pointing to *sources*, and allowing people to continue accurate work, but I won't have people rewriting the book that the Defense industry uses, in order to assuage the honour of their pet tank.

again, to re-iterate: I'll do that once there's an established standard, and I'll co-operate to establish one. Wholeheartedly.

4. Co-operation on technique/skills.

Bingo. If we have to elect the willing to co-ordinate, that's democracy for you. I'm behind that.

[Tigershark 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Leone @ Feb. 21 2003,09:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ummmmm...I don't think the idea should just be to make "popular" addons as such. Whilst it mightn't matter to you about Canadian forces, it does matter to them. And this sort of thing should be done in the spirit of inclusion not exclusion. There may well be plenty of addons that you will never use, but somebody out there may find them absolutely perfect....and I don't think this should (or could) be the sort of thing where we telll people what they can play OFP with.

Just as a general principal, does everyone basically agree on the following aims:

1. Reduce and eliminate redundency.

2. Standardised config values as much as possible.

3. Open source on configs (put it in the read-me).

4. Co-operation on technique/skills.

I am leaving out creating uberPBO's for the time being, because I don't know that there is an ideal way for the selection of the items to be placed in it yet...but that may change (I only just woke up).

Also I still stand by the idea of having mod-teams etc having a forum of their own....not to choose who is making the best model/texture etc, but to concentrate on the above 4 aims, and to encourage more dialogue between everyone. Ultimately if it seems that everyone can't work together on making uberPBO's, then just drop it.....

PS...those of you who are reading this thread just waiting for an outcome....participate plz...have your say...it's your community too  <span id='postcolor'>

Objectives nicely summed up there Leone

[Tigershark 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kikill @ Feb. 21 2003,09:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ofpec is already rating addons<span id='postcolor'>

Kikill....well spotted....the Addons Section of OFPEC was started for this very reason....to make sure quality addons were hosted and therefore OFPEC Approved.

Unfortunately...Wolfsbane and I differed on opinions of the importance of Addons in the community and sadly the whole addons section of OFPEC has become a graveyard. Other sites are doing a better job of hosting addons...albeit without quality control.

[Tigershark 0]

Guys...I think all this talk of committee and such is bogging us down a little.

Let's start small and start with increased co-operation and communication between keys mods to stop duplication and share cpp stds. Then once we have a foundation...move to making a "committee" or central website as powerslide suggested (that idea has merit...although it's kind of an OFPEC for addons)

Start small...BAS and RSS have already begun discussions....Codeblue is on board as well....we already share stuff with Project UK Forces. Let's self regulate first and then move to the "committee" idea.

[PiNs_Da_Smoka 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Feb. 20 2003,18:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wolfsbane and I differed on opinions<span id='postcolor'>

Whoa TS! Are you telling me that Wolfsbane actually butt'd heads with someone!? Nevah!

But anyways. I remember a while back, TS, when this was trying to get happening, what ever happened to it then? Anyways. Seems as though you're doing great m'man. Always the revolutionary you are.

[Tigershark 0]

Viva la revolution!

Actually guys...Avon Lady kicked this all off......I'm just running with it while she sits back with her legs up on the coffee table.