A question to bas addon studio

[PiNs_Da_Smoka 0]

marykay kicked THIS off, yes. But was that not you who started the standardized addons idea we discussed a while back? I believe it was! (wasn't it? i'm not thinking of Devilchaser, am i?) Even e-mailed a site or two proposing the idea. Either way, you're just the man to do it TS.

[Schoeler 0]

Tigershark, I think you are right, start small and see how it goes and then build from there. Once more mods get onboard then the number participating and the level of sophistication will increase. What really needs to be done is add a message board for those willing to take part, but, that remains able to be read by, but not posted to by non-members.

[mooncaine 0]

1. Reduce and eliminate redundancy.

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 agree with all four suggestions and think each is important. Open configs are particularly important. I am not sure putting it in the readme is enough; why shouldn't config files be open?

I mean it, really. Why?

As far as ensuring quality goes, I realize there is a delicate balance to be struck. The whole point of having ratings is to assess quality and communicate that assessment.

I didn't really catch on that other sites were offering more addons. I'd rather see as many addons as possible [with the poor ones rated as such, if you like] than to have a filtered, selected list. Having someone knowledgeable filter out the 'crud' is valuable, I realize, but, as Leone said, "And this sort of thing should be done in the spirit of inclusion not exclusion."

[Tigershark 0]

OK...so we have a number of interested groups who want to align with each other.

What should we call this group of mods. We need a catchy name so we can say...we are a member of the such and such.

The Cartel

The Alliance

[Sigma-6 29]

The United States Of America. . .

Oh hell. . . I just looked, and somebody took that one. . .

[Guest ####]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Feb. 21 2003,04:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK...so we have a number of interested groups who want to align with each other.

What should we call this group of mods. We need a catchy name so we can say...we are a member of the such and such.

The Cartel

The Alliance<span id='postcolor'>

I say we go with the Happy Little Hugs Factory.

[Tigershark 0]

Yes...there is a lotta love in this thread....but not that much.

Any serious suggestions?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sigma-6 @ Feb. 21 2003,01:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sigma 6

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.

<span id='postcolor'>

I just threw the word "eliminate" in there to try and guage how far people wanted to take it. I know it's impossible, and not necessarily desirable. Charles Darwin might have something to say on the matter

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sigma6

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.

<span id='postcolor'>

This is a fundemental point. Do you standardise things so that they are realistic or have good gameplay? To give an example:

At OPGWC we have a Challenger Tank as used by the British. It was a total asskicking tank, and the stats on it from the Gulf War are very impressive. Now if it was made totally realistically any mission involving it vs Iraqi tanks would turn out very boring indeed. So we are thinking about balancing things a bit so that the gameplay is more interesting.

And this is why I think standards shouldn't just be copied out of a manual...a bit more thought may have to go into it. Otherwise what may end up happening is people only want to use a couple of different guns/vehicles etc, and the others get totally ignored, because they aren't able to compete on the battlefield.

OFP was never designed to be a SIM game, and I don't think it would work well if taken to that extreme. If nobody else feels this way, I am happy to go along with the mob (not that I'd be in it anyway....I only make islands...), but please have a careful think about this. A game that is totally realistic (as far as the OFP engine will allow) might be good in theory, but how much would you and the rest of the community actually want to play it?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mooncaine

I didn't really catch on that other sites were offering more addons. I'd rather see as many addons as possible [with the poor ones rated as such, if you like] than to have a filtered, selected list. Having someone knowledgeable filter out the 'crud' is valuable, I realize, but, as Leone said, "And this sort of thing should be done in the spirit of inclusion not exclusion."<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't mean it in the sense of having badly made addons included, much more in the sense that just because you mightn't want to play with AddonX doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't. I totally agree with crud filtering...unless the addon is:

A. Useable

B. Unique

C. Valuable (handy for certain things)

D. No-one else is interested in making a better version.

In that case I would say include it. And with some help, it could be made much better anyway

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sigma6

The United States Of America. . .

Oh hell. . . I just looked, and somebody took that one. . . <span id='postcolor'>

LMAO

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (#### @ Feb. 21 2003,05:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Feb. 21 2003,04:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">OK...so we have a number of interested groups who want to align with each other.

What should we call this group of mods. We need a catchy name so we can say...we are a member of the such and such.

The Cartel

The Alliance<span id='postcolor'>

I say we go with the Happy Little Hugs Factory.<span id='postcolor'>

"The Syndicate".

[Tigershark 0]

Everyone is a comedian

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Feb. 21 2003,07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone is a comedian  <span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't joking.

[contraz0rz 0]

Operation Flashpoint Addon Committee (OFPAC)

[Tigershark 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Feb. 21 2003,14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tigershark @ Feb. 21 2003,07:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everyone is a comedian  <span id='postcolor'>

I wasn't joking.<span id='postcolor'>

Doh...sorry

[suchey 0]

It would seem that, in a nutshell, the discussion here is leading toward a common upgrade to OFP...a community built and designed "patch" adding a variety of weapons, soldiers, equipment, etc etc.  Sort of a "Flashpoint 2003".  Like any project of this nature, a govorning body would need to be installed.  A project manager type of person.  I think that in order to succesfully begin thinking about a project of this size and nature would require splitting first into timeframe...ww2, vietnam, contemporary, etc....then to sides like Russian/NATO or Axis/Allies...from there each individual section could be divided into smaller subsections....weapons, infantry, vehicles, etc....and on down the line.  Each portion working toward a common goal of creating a single pack for that time fram.  If the community can pull this off it would be a serious kick in the butt for OFP...standardized addon packs!  The effect on every portion of OFP play would be HUGE.  Imagine mission makers who specialize in use of the 'contemporary pack'...or deciding to play multiplay on one of a variety of servers running the 'WW2 pack'.  A most ambitious project to say the least and certianly not an easy task.  If the community can pull something like this off it would certainly extend the life of OFP far into the foreseeable future.  In order for this to even begin to come to light someone is going to have to take the bull by the horns...its hard to even image where to begin with such a large scale ambition.

[-CCCP-Stalker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (contraz0rz @ Feb. 21 2003,06:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Operation Flashpoint Addon Committee (OFPAC)<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe. It sounds best from all what I heard

[Tigershark 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (contraz0rz @ Feb. 21 2003,14:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Operation Flashpoint Addon Committee (OFPAC)<span id='postcolor'>

Too formal

[kikill 0]

Microsoft OFP XP Game Control

[ale2999 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Suchey @ Feb. 21 2003,08:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It would seem that, in a nutshell, the discussion here is leading toward a common upgrade to OFP...a community built and designed "patch" adding a variety of weapons, soldiers, equipment, etc etc.  Sort of a "Flashpoint 2003".  Like any project of this nature, a govorning body would need to be installed.  A project manager type of person.  I think that in order to succesfully begin thinking about a project of this size and nature would require splitting first into timeframe...ww2, vietnam, contemporary, etc....then to sides like Russian/NATO or Axis/Allies...from there each individual section could be divided into smaller subsections....weapons, infantry, vehicles, etc....and on down the line.  Each portion working toward a common goal of creating a single pack for that time fram.  If the community can pull this off it would be a serious kick in the butt for OFP...standardized addon packs!  The effect on every portion of OFP play would be HUGE.  Imagine mission makers who specialize in use of the 'contemporary pack'...or deciding to play multiplay on one of a variety of servers running the 'WW2 pack'.  A most ambitious project to say the least and certianly not an easy task.  If the community can pull something like this off it would certainly extend the life of OFP far into the foreseeable future.  In order for this to even begin to come to light someone is going to have to take the bull by the horns...its hard to even image where to begin with such a large scale ambition.<span id='postcolor'>

ya suchey is right, if this would work it would be really really gr8 !!

what about THE OFP STANDARDIZERS

OFP ALL4ONE STUDIO

[theavonlady 2]

OAS - OFP Addon Society.

OSHA - OFP Syndicate for Healthy Addons.

OATS - OFP Addon Technologies Society.

[kikill 0]

aaaaaaaaaahhh not OAS, too much blood in this acronyme! really it was an extremist group!

[kikill 0]

Addon Quality Certified

[kikill 0]

the common sense

[Guest]

Bohemia Interactive Community...no, wait that's a cigarette lighter.

[KaRRiLLioN 0]

OFP Unified Addons Convention

OFP Addons Standards Commission

OFP Addons Equivalents Standards

I'm hopeful this will work. I've had to do all sorts of cruddy workarounds just to even things out for some missions. It's a travesty to have to let the CCCP use blackhawks and OH58's just because the only transport chopper they have is the Mi17.

In RTS-3 I had to do a special .cpp file just to make east versions of several addons I use. I'd love to use the BAS Rangers addon, but then nobody would want to play on East. Plus it'd look kind of silly.

I hope this works. Goodness knows I'd like to see an equalization of East/West addons.

[suchey 0]

FL.A.C (Flashpoint Addon Collective)

pronounced like flak

?